Is there any servers offfering any of the usenet ii groups? I've been
reading about this. Also what does the term mean a sound usenet site? I
would take that to mean no spam but not sure.

seth Hurst <seth@home.sethhurst.com> writes:
> Is there any servers offfering any of the usenet ii groups? I've been
> reading about this. Also what does the term mean a sound usenet site? I
> would take that to mean no spam but not sure.

It was abandoned over a decade ago.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 12:44:29 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

> seth Hurst <seth@home.sethhurst.com> writes:
>> Is there any servers offfering any of the usenet ii groups? I've been
>> reading about this. Also what does the term mean a sound usenet site? I
>> would take that to mean no spam but not sure.
>
> It was abandoned over a decade ago.

ah okay.

seth Hurst <seth@home.sethhurst.com> wrote:
>> It was abandoned over a decade ago.
>
> ah okay.

There is even a Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_II

and a web page: if it was once related to Usenet II (no idea), the
usenet 2 dot org domain is now apparently a parked / advertising domain
(according to Google, because it currently just says "The requested URL
was not found on this server.")

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes:
> seth Hurst <seth@home.sethhurst.com> writes:

>> Is there any servers offfering any of the usenet ii groups? I've been
>> reading about this. Also what does the term mean a sound usenet site? I
>> would take that to mean no spam but not sure.

> It was abandoned over a decade ago.

The basic problem was lack of traffic. It sort of fell between two
stools: too high of a barrier to entry to get enough of the (small)
remaining Usenet traffic to remain viable over time, but too low of a
barrier of entry to have the feeling of community of a private hierarchy.

In my personal opinion, a lot of the things that were being tried at the
time were variations of "how do we introduce some level of moderation for
Usenet groups that isn't the highly arcane and poorly-designed traditional
moderation system, but without changing the protocol." And the answer
was, basically, "you can't," with a small exception for truly private
invite-only hierarchies, which continue to work fine for a sweet spot of
about 20-50 active participants but cannot scale.

--
Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Please post questions rather than mailing me directly.
<https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.