What will stop all the OffTopic Spam?

[GregS]

In article <pan.2009.07.21.15.31.27@speakeasy.net>, Nicholas Bodley <n_bod_ley@speakeasy.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:44:01 +0000, GregS wrote:

To stop it you complain to those responsible. I have done that many
times and will continue.

Coupla Q.:

1. How much luck do you have locating the source, with enough confidence
that you have actually found the people who sent the spam? You must be
having better luck than I'd thought.

Going directly to the web sites gives typical responses by the people repying to questions.
Typical answer like "what you say?" Going to whois can be trying. Many emails are
hidden and redirected. I found many spams eminating from an LA source.

I replied to a bank, who right on the website said it was
such a good company, no spam, secure, etc. It did seem to
get a positive response.

2. Hate to ask, but do you think complaining changes any minds?

Do you think it will change if you don't complain.

Every day and year people complain about gov't. Should you not complain ?
Maybe contact Al Gore !!

I really do wish that what you do makes a diff., but I fear that spammers
are totally-uncivilized opportunists who misuse a system set up for
civilized people. Friend of mine says that spamming might stop (or
decrease a lot) after a few serious spammers are assassinated, and word
gets out.

I suspect that IPv6 might have very little spam, but as well, it might
not be as accessible to all as the present, which is IPv4 -- wait --
we're using NNTP here. Maybe IPv6 is irrelevant?

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:41:31 -0400, "Leonard Caillouet"
<nospam@noway.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:4pf9651e4ptsestor93ose8ddsguimig4r@4ax.com...
I've also crafted a filter that blocks any postings that disagree with
my point of view. Unfortunately, that leaves only my own postings to
read, so I no longer use it.

Now, if I could only figure out how to filter out one-line replies
that quote the entire previous article. I did that when I was running
Cnews with trn but that was long ago.

Too bad you didn't find a fix for the tendency for Usenet to bring out the
smart-ass in most of us.

Leonard

Why else would one post answers to dumb questions on Usenet? A small
part is trying to be helpful, but the majority of my effort is
directed toward self-engrandizement, ego inflation, fame, notoriety,
and repeating my favorite rants until someone believes them. Smart-ass
is far better than dumb-ass.

I don't have any problem with differing points of view. The problem I
have is when they state their one-line opinion, and then don't bother
to substantiate or explain it. I don't really care about someone's
opinions. I care about why they think the world is flat or how they
came to that conclusion. I can learn from that, but not from the
one-line opinion. With a generation raised on emoticons, SMS
messaging, forums with room for only one liners, and now Twitter, I
sometimes wonder if they're simply unable to compose more than
one-line or properly substantiate anything.

I would also be seriously worried if anyone ever agreed with me.
Agreement is very abnormal on Usenet. For every statement, one can
expect dozens of contrary comments, but little or no agreement. People
that agree, just simply don't post. If anything, they will find some
minor and often insignificant part of the topic, and disagree with
that (causing topic drift). It's also difficult to be smart-ass when
agreeing, but very easy when disagreeing.

There's also the phenomenon on Usenet, where the most trivial and
badly written questions, receive the most answers, while well written,
properly researched, and fairly intelligent questions, are ignored.
Just look at the list of off-topic, wrong newsgroup, minimal
information, and just plain incoherent questions in
sci.electronics.repair. Only the dumbest (like this thread) get
attention. It's to much work to deal with a real problem. After a
few failed attempts, anyone with a real problem is certainly not going
to supply the necessary detail and numbers. They'll just post low
quality question, and sift through the smart-ass comments hoping to
find a clue. It works.

At the bottom of every dumpster and garbage heap is a diamond. All
one needs to do is dig through all the garbage to find it. So it is
with problem solving on Usenet.

So, feel free to reply with the traditional one-line disagreement.
Until I get my one-line filter working, I can still manually ignore
such postings.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[WindsorFo]

root wrote:

Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
How to stop it? It makes it difficult to find real questions, and
later searching through archives will be horrendous.
Use a server with Cleanfeed and NoCem - you won't see any spam.

I agree, the newsserver is the solution. Highwinds has no filter
and has become unusable.

There's a lot of things Highwinds doesn't have. Starting with
intelligent help...

--




"You may have noticed that I continue to use the term
'open-carry' rather than "OC" This is avoid confusion
with Oleoresin Capsicum, a Latin term meaning 'Give me
some water, bitch. This sh*t is melting my eyeballs.'" - dawg23

 

[Arfa Daily]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:6crb65dern18p4mplinhjdobcq20al8u5s@4ax.com...

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:41:31 -0400, "Leonard Caillouet"
nospam@noway.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:4pf9651e4ptsestor93ose8ddsguimig4r@4ax.com...
I've also crafted a filter that blocks any postings that disagree with
my point of view. Unfortunately, that leaves only my own postings to
read, so I no longer use it.

Now, if I could only figure out how to filter out one-line replies
that quote the entire previous article. I did that when I was running
Cnews with trn but that was long ago.

Too bad you didn't find a fix for the tendency for Usenet to bring out the
smart-ass in most of us.

Leonard

Why else would one post answers to dumb questions on Usenet? A small
part is trying to be helpful, but the majority of my effort is
directed toward self-engrandizement, ego inflation, fame, notoriety,
and repeating my favorite rants until someone believes them. Smart-ass
is far better than dumb-ass.

I don't have any problem with differing points of view. The problem I
have is when they state their one-line opinion, and then don't bother
to substantiate or explain it. I don't really care about someone's
opinions. I care about why they think the world is flat or how they
came to that conclusion. I can learn from that, but not from the
one-line opinion. With a generation raised on emoticons, SMS
messaging, forums with room for only one liners, and now Twitter, I
sometimes wonder if they're simply unable to compose more than
one-line or properly substantiate anything.

I would also be seriously worried if anyone ever agreed with me.
Agreement is very abnormal on Usenet. For every statement, one can
expect dozens of contrary comments, but little or no agreement. People
that agree, just simply don't post. If anything, they will find some
minor and often insignificant part of the topic, and disagree with
that (causing topic drift). It's also difficult to be smart-ass when
agreeing, but very easy when disagreeing.

There's also the phenomenon on Usenet, where the most trivial and
badly written questions, receive the most answers, while well written,
properly researched, and fairly intelligent questions, are ignored.
Just look at the list of off-topic, wrong newsgroup, minimal
information, and just plain incoherent questions in
sci.electronics.repair. Only the dumbest (like this thread) get
attention. It's to much work to deal with a real problem. After a
few failed attempts, anyone with a real problem is certainly not going
to supply the necessary detail and numbers. They'll just post low
quality question, and sift through the smart-ass comments hoping to
find a clue. It works.

At the bottom of every dumpster and garbage heap is a diamond. All
one needs to do is dig through all the garbage to find it. So it is
with problem solving on Usenet.

So, feel free to reply with the traditional one-line disagreement.
Until I get my one-line filter working, I can still manually ignore
such postings.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com

I agree ...

Arfa

 

[Ron]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:6crb65dern18p4mplinhjdobcq20al8u5s@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:41:31 -0400, "Leonard Caillouet"
nospam@noway.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:4pf9651e4ptsestor93ose8ddsguimig4r@4ax.com...
I've also crafted a filter that blocks any postings that disagree with
my point of view. Unfortunately, that leaves only my own postings to
read, so I no longer use it.

Now, if I could only figure out how to filter out one-line replies
that quote the entire previous article. I did that when I was running
Cnews with trn but that was long ago.
Too bad you didn't find a fix for the tendency for Usenet to bring out the
smart-ass in most of us.

Leonard
Why else would one post answers to dumb questions on Usenet? A small
part is trying to be helpful, but the majority of my effort is
directed toward self-engrandizement, ego inflation, fame, notoriety,
and repeating my favorite rants until someone believes them. Smart-ass
is far better than dumb-ass.

I don't have any problem with differing points of view. The problem I
have is when they state their one-line opinion, and then don't bother
to substantiate or explain it. I don't really care about someone's
opinions. I care about why they think the world is flat or how they
came to that conclusion. I can learn from that, but not from the
one-line opinion. With a generation raised on emoticons, SMS
messaging, forums with room for only one liners, and now Twitter, I
sometimes wonder if they're simply unable to compose more than
one-line or properly substantiate anything.

I would also be seriously worried if anyone ever agreed with me.
Agreement is very abnormal on Usenet. For every statement, one can
expect dozens of contrary comments, but little or no agreement. People
that agree, just simply don't post. If anything, they will find some
minor and often insignificant part of the topic, and disagree with
that (causing topic drift). It's also difficult to be smart-ass when
agreeing, but very easy when disagreeing.

There's also the phenomenon on Usenet, where the most trivial and
badly written questions, receive the most answers, while well written,
properly researched, and fairly intelligent questions, are ignored.
Just look at the list of off-topic, wrong newsgroup, minimal
information, and just plain incoherent questions in
sci.electronics.repair. Only the dumbest (like this thread) get
attention. It's to much work to deal with a real problem. After a
few failed attempts, anyone with a real problem is certainly not going
to supply the necessary detail and numbers. They'll just post low
quality question, and sift through the smart-ass comments hoping to
find a clue. It works.

At the bottom of every dumpster and garbage heap is a diamond. All
one needs to do is dig through all the garbage to find it. So it is
with problem solving on Usenet.

So, feel free to reply with the traditional one-line disagreement.
Until I get my one-line filter working, I can still manually ignore
such postings.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com


I agree ...

Arfa


Me too

Ron

 

[JeffM]

GregS wrote:
To stop it you complain to those responsible.
I have done that many times and will continue.

Nicholas Bodley wrote:
How much luck do you have locating the source,
with enough confidence that you have actually found
the people who sent the spam?[...]

Almost 100%. It's the rare spammer that is smart.

Most leave a drip-trail leading right back to themselves.
X-Complaints-To data is in the header.
Most spammers aren't sophistocated enough to mask that.

If the abuse contact data points to Google, ignore that.
Google is 100% mercenary; even if they cancel the *account*
Google will accept another signup that uses THE SAME email account.
All you have to do is a Reverse-DNS on the Posting Host.
That gives the ISP and the abuse contact data.
Bitch to those folks.

Hate to ask, but do you think complaining changes any minds?

I some cases, no.

All internet-related activity out of China is criminal in nature
and the providers are no different than their customers.

There is a guy in Finland who is brain-injured like the MI-5 guy
and spews paranoia in his native language.
Don't bother, his provider doesn't give a shit.

The Giuen Holding spammer uses a provider in Germany.
As he reappears regularly using the same host,
apparently, they don't give a shit.

The providers for the 365 spammer are rogue.
The providers for the 18 spammer are rogue.

Spam from most *other* sources stops shortly after reports.
It may be coincidence, it may be cause-and-effect;
can't say for sure which is which.
As Szekeres intimated, if you do nothing, you exert zero control.

Friend of mine says that spamming might stop
(or decrease a lot) after a few serious spammers are assassinated,
and word gets out.

Dead men tell no tales.

OTOH, a face beaten into geletin with a baseball bat
(but the dirtbag survives) would communicate the point well.
If the *gatekeepers* at the providers got the **same** treatment,
THEN I think things would change.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:6crb65dern18p4mplinhjdobcq20al8u5s@4ax.com...

So, feel free to reply with the traditional one-line disagreement.
Until I get my one-line filter working, I can still manually ignore
such postings.

Sorry to ruin your day, Jeff, but I agree with you.

Leonard

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:37:39 -0400, "Leonard Caillouet"
<nospam@noway.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:6crb65dern18p4mplinhjdobcq20al8u5s@4ax.com...

So, feel free to reply with the traditional one-line disagreement.
Until I get my one-line filter working, I can still manually ignore
such postings.

Sorry to ruin your day, Jeff, but I agree with you.
Leonard

My day is ruined, but it's not your fault. It was the fettuccini
Alfredo made from assorted noodles, engine oil, with unidentifiable
mushrooms, dry lube parmesan, and lawn clippings as toppings. It
seemed tasty, but now I feel just as nauseous as when I read Usenet.
Ummm... I wonder what type of mushrooms?

I should ignore your one-liner, but it's been so long since anyone has
agreed with me, I want to savour the moment. I'm sure it will wear
off rapidly, but I wanna enjoy it while it lasts.

Enough philosophy and home cooking for one day. Please try to become
part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

(I was going to answer with a one-line reply, but I don't know how to
be so brief).

 

[Bob Larter]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:6crb65dern18p4mplinhjdobcq20al8u5s@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:41:31 -0400, "Leonard Caillouet"
nospam@noway.com> wrote:

"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:4pf9651e4ptsestor93ose8ddsguimig4r@4ax.com...
I've also crafted a filter that blocks any postings that disagree with
my point of view. Unfortunately, that leaves only my own postings to
read, so I no longer use it.

Now, if I could only figure out how to filter out one-line replies
that quote the entire previous article. I did that when I was running
Cnews with trn but that was long ago.
Too bad you didn't find a fix for the tendency for Usenet to bring out the
smart-ass in most of us.

Leonard
Why else would one post answers to dumb questions on Usenet? A small
part is trying to be helpful, but the majority of my effort is
directed toward self-engrandizement, ego inflation, fame, notoriety,
and repeating my favorite rants until someone believes them. Smart-ass
is far better than dumb-ass.

I don't have any problem with differing points of view. The problem I
have is when they state their one-line opinion, and then don't bother
to substantiate or explain it. I don't really care about someone's
opinions. I care about why they think the world is flat or how they
came to that conclusion. I can learn from that, but not from the
one-line opinion. With a generation raised on emoticons, SMS
messaging, forums with room for only one liners, and now Twitter, I
sometimes wonder if they're simply unable to compose more than
one-line or properly substantiate anything.

I would also be seriously worried if anyone ever agreed with me.
Agreement is very abnormal on Usenet. For every statement, one can
expect dozens of contrary comments, but little or no agreement. People
that agree, just simply don't post. If anything, they will find some
minor and often insignificant part of the topic, and disagree with
that (causing topic drift). It's also difficult to be smart-ass when
agreeing, but very easy when disagreeing.

There's also the phenomenon on Usenet, where the most trivial and
badly written questions, receive the most answers, while well written,
properly researched, and fairly intelligent questions, are ignored.
Just look at the list of off-topic, wrong newsgroup, minimal
information, and just plain incoherent questions in
sci.electronics.repair. Only the dumbest (like this thread) get
attention. It's to much work to deal with a real problem. After a
few failed attempts, anyone with a real problem is certainly not going
to supply the necessary detail and numbers. They'll just post low
quality question, and sift through the smart-ass comments hoping to
find a clue. It works.

At the bottom of every dumpster and garbage heap is a diamond. All
one needs to do is dig through all the garbage to find it. So it is
with problem solving on Usenet.

So, feel free to reply with the traditional one-line disagreement.
Until I get my one-line filter working, I can still manually ignore
such postings.


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com


I agree ...

I disagree. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

GregS wrote:

In article <1bee3a52-ab38-483d-a356-bb6abba6d5be@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Robert Macy <macy@california.com> wrote:
This group has a ton of off topic spam, jeans, tennis shoes...

Why?

How to stop it? It makes it difficult to find real questions, and
later searching through archives will be horrendous.

Other public groups don't seem to thave this much, just one every week
or so. What's the breakdown here?

Robert

Most will tell you to block it. To stop it you complain to those responsible.
I have done thant many times and will continue. If no
one complains it just goes on.

FWIW, I've been firing off complaints to Google about their spammers,
but it doesn't seem to have made any difference.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------