router with ipv6

You are welcome to your own opinions. Many people find the large quantities of spamvertisements posted from googlegroups.com objectionable, and the absolute refusal of google to control that abuse as grounds for filtering all posts from that source - spam or not.

The "shark" may be gone, but "The Usenet Improvement Project" is still reachable at

formatting link
people apply a very simple rule to their news reading or spooling tool (syntax may vary - see your documentation):

[*] Score:: =-9999 Message-ID: googlegroups.com

Just because your news reader can't do that doesn't mean others can't as well. Additionally, some news _providers_ filter all posts from google. That is the reason I've set my news reader to automatically include that "NOTE:" whenever I reply to a post from googlegroups.com.

Old guy

Reply to
Moe Trin
Loading thread data ...

Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, Moe Trin chose the tried and tested strategy of:

The statistics you supply are interesting, but don't help me estimate whether the average number of NAT layers as supplied on internet connections by ISPs higher in China than in the UK. Having thought some more, it does seem less likely as there are only so many people you can have behind a single public IP address [depending on their propensity to open connections, and keep them open].

Reply to
alexd

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:07:44 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote in :

No.

How many is "plenty" exactly, and what percentage of total users?

Suit yourself. Way too many false positives for my taste.

Reply to
John Navas

On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:58:37 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in :

How "many" exactly, and what percentage of total users?

Reply to
John Navas

Without looking in country, it's somewhat hard to give actual figures, but using a (passive) O/S fingerprinting tool to analyze the connection attempts at my firewall shows little indication of NAT. Either they are managing to NAT in such a manner as to mimic existing operating systems well enough to fool this tool, or they aren't doing NAT. Of course, that's a rather limited view, as all I'm likely to see are ordinary people who made typ0s (I don't offer services to the world), skript kiddiez and 'b0ts. For what it's worth, I do see some NAT'ed connection attempts reported (average around 0.1%, 3/4 windoze, 1/4 some form of *nix), but these seem to be residential users with no obvious geographic dominance other than the "local" network range.

That's the other problem. Most users on the Internet are using some form of web browser because that's the only application they've heard of (cue the standard joke that "all hostnames on the internet begin with 'www' and end with '.com'"). Given the amount of extra crap on the average web page, a system is going to be using a number of connections just to bring up all of the graphics, ads, and mal-ware. Trying to fit a bunch of users into a single address runs into bandwidth and CPU issues fairly quickly.

Old guy

Reply to
Moe Trin

Who knows or cares - it's quite obviously non-zero. Do you have figures for total readership of all newsgroups? Of the few who bothered to respond to your post here, it looks as if your "Nonsense" response is Nonsense - and yes, I also filter posts from googlegroups.com in several of the Usenet groups I try to scan daily.

Old guy

Reply to
Moe Trin

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:06:23 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in :

It's also quite obviously insignificant.

Reply to
John Navas

Well, that of course is impossible to answer. I block google; it's not so bad here (a.i.w.) but on the Mac groups it's a necessity. Probably

40% of the regular "posters" on comp.sys.mac.system block google. As the man says, google groups are a pain in the ass, and the "do no evil" people are quite willing to let others use their services for evil. Google are too busy kissing up to the Chinese ...
Reply to
Warren Oates

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:17:25 -0500, Warren Oates wrote in :

Color me (very) skeptical.

I respectfully disagree.

Reply to
John Navas

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.