On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:35:28 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:27:55 -0400, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ"
wrote in :

I can see how they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I can't. How does GoogleGroups situation differ from other Usenet
gateways?

Enforcing their stated policies concerning the posting of articles to
Usenet doesn't seem to be too big a problem for most ISPs, premium
Usenet providers, and web-based gateways. Why shouldn't it be
expected of GoogleGroups too?

Because Google Groups is free

How does the fact that GoogleGroups doesn't charge for the use of
their web site give them license to act irresponsibly? Many free
web-based Usenet gateways do act responsibly; why not GoogleGroups?

and they don't have a good way confirming you are who you say you are.

Sure they do. They not only have your IP address, they have the
information (username, password, etc) you used to create your
GoogleGrups account.

If I create a new account and spam with it on Google I just open a new
account when they close the old one.

So you're saying, that it's okay for GoogleGrups not to terminate the
accounts of those who have posted spam from their Usenet gateway,
because there's a possibility of another account being opened from the
same IP address? I disagree. When they see multiple GoogleGroups
accounts being opened by a user with the same IP address, I would hope
they will have a clue about what's going on.

Supernews on the other hand requires me to pay with a credit card or my ISP pays them.

Therefore Supernews has a _disincentive_ for terminating the accounts
of those subscribers who use their Supernews account to inject spam
articles into the news stream. Yet Supernews acts responsibly, and
terminate the accounts of their subscribers who fail to adhere their
terms of use agreement, unlike GoogleGroups.