The Usenet network understands the so-called “cancel” commands, whereby the UseNeXT search index won’t follow such cancel commands to remove infringing content.”

No legitimate Usenet provider obeys cancel commands. They’re too easy to forge and abuse. If they did, hackers would be cancelling posts all over the place, just for the fun of it.

@Comeoncomcast (aka Andrew)

“I think Usenet is unsafe, period.”

You’re wrong.

First of all, downloading and running an EXECUTABLE file from an unknown source is going to be unsafe no matter where you get the file from. If someone uploads an infected file to BitTorrent and you download and run it, your system will get infected. Sure, such torrents will probably get deleted off the major torrent sites, but what if you download it before that happens? Or you download it from a smaller site that hasn’t deleted it? Also note that this applies ONLY to executable files, not video, not audio, not pictures or anything else.

On Usenet, people DO upload infected executable files. However, if you actually read the particular group, rather than just using a search site and NZB files all the time, you will see that other users quickly post warnings when a post is fake or dangerous.

Then there’s the software itself. How many BitTorrent scams are there? From selling otherwise free software like uTorrent to shady companies providing a “client” that is full of malware. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a fake piece of Usenet software or one that came with malware. Some are free, some are commercial, but all seem legitimate.

“It is identical to limewire but instead of peers and the GNutella network they have servers.”

This is a blatant lie. Usenet operates nothing like a file sharing network. All P2P programs are designed to download directly from other users and to automatically upload everything you download to anyone who wants it. Usenet is one-way. You either download or you upload. You NEVER automatically upload anything unless you specifically want to upload. Even then, it wouldn’t be as easy as checking a box marked “Share”. There would be no point. You’re downloading from a newserver that already has a copy of the files. Uploading a second copy would be pointless and is in fact, greatly frowned upon as a waste of bandwidth. If you have something you want to post, you have to have to use a dedicated posting program (Otherwise it’s a lot of work and has a great potential for screwing up).

Additionally, since you ARE downloading from a central server, there’s no way that 3rd parties can monitor what you’re doing. Most legitimate Usenet providers don’t keep download logs, so even they don’t know what you’re downloading. They keep upload logs at least a few days, but in this respect, it’s no worse than uploading/sharing something on BitTorrent.

“and unlike BitTorrent offer lax or no encryption and are unfiltered which malicous software may infect an end(paying) users PC So hmm…”

What world are you living in?

Many large Usenet providers offer SSL encrypted connections, which is the same method used by banks, online store and others to encrypt sensitive information. Does BitTorrent support the use of SSL? The last I checked, the only “encryption” that BT clients offer encrypts the protocol headers, but not the actual data.

Secondly, the idea that just running a Usenet program and connecting to a newsserver can infect a user’s computer is beyond stupid. Usenet was designed as TEXT based medium and although some advances have been made in getting it to accept raw binary data, it’s not there yet. All files still need to be at least partially encoded and absolutely nothing is stored on the server in a from that will actually execute/run. All data is sent to the user’s system in either text, or encoded form, which must then be decoded by the client. There is nothing in the NNTP protocol that could possibly infect a user’s system.

Binary files are decoded by the Usenet client software back into their original form. At that point, if you have downloaded an infected executable and you decide to run it, your system can be infected, but this is no different than with BitTorrent.

About the only Usenet users at risk are those who are stupid enough to think that Outlook Express actually qualifies as a newsreader. They like it because of the preview pane, which is exactly what puts them at risk, since it will launch ANY type of file regardless of what it is. All modern Usenet clients that include a preview pane, restrict it to only viewing images (and not using any of MS’s buggy code) and have safeguards in place to prevent the launching of executable files or any other type of file that might potentially be unsafe, without your consent.

Not to mention that, barring unforseen problems, the download speed from a good Usenet provider is as fast as your internet connection allows. BitTorrent speeds fluctuate from good, on recent uploads to pathetic on anything that’s more than six months old.

It is identical to limewire but instead of peers and the GNutella network they have servers.

and unlike BitTorrent offer lax or no encryption and are unfiltered which malicous software may infect an end(paying) users PC So hmm…

and the reply from usenext : http://www.usenetshack.com/usenext-reply-user-review-services/