Windows XP optimization tricks

Windows XP tips and tricks. Learn how to bypass very common windows
problems, to speed up your system and make it more reliable with
useful tips and tricks.

http://windowsxpsp2pro.blogspot.com

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

travolta006@gmail.com wrote in
news:1185367790.527061.195760@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

Some utter shite

I tried a few days ago to mail abuse@blogspot.com
It took three days for a response, and when it came it looked like a
bounce. So either they're all asleep at the wheel or they're a bunch of
fakers all.

Is it time to concede that Usenet is a flood plain? Is it time that the
repeated spams from certain known regular spammers are to be considered a
kind of beginning to a mindless assault on Usenet that forces us to leave
it to the flood as it grows to the point where no real population can be
maintained?

Don't bother to answer this, it's just a bit of dismal rhetoric inspired by
the current weather and politicking in the UK right now, because in some
ways what's happening in Usenet is dismally similar.

/rant.

 

[John Hadstate]

On Jul 25, 11:17 am, Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote:

travolta...@gmail.com wrote innews:1185367790.527061.195760@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

Is it time to concede that Usenet is a flood plain? Is it time that the
repeated spams from certain known regular spammers are to be considered a
kind of beginning to a mindless assault on Usenet that forces us to leave
it to the flood as it grows to the point where no real population can be
maintained?

If you hate this kind of penny-ante trash, you'd really love what's
been going on in sci.crypt for the past 6 weeks. Some of the larger
USENET servers are showing 300,000+ postings to sci.crypt, 80% of
which were posted in the last 45 days.

USENET is broken. It was designed for an era when intelligent,
educated people used it to get real work done. It is highly
vulnerable to exploitation by degenerates, and it should surprise no
one that this has happened.

 

[Randy Yates]

John Hadstate <jh113355@hotmail.com> writes:

USENET is broken. It was designed for an era when intelligent,
educated people used it to get real work done. It is highly
vulnerable to exploitation by degenerates, and it should surprise no
one that this has happened.

I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater as it is otherwise a
great medium for discussion/consultation.

If the important groups were made moderated, would that not solve most
of the problem?
--
% Randy Yates % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882 % but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[Eeyore]

Randy Yates wrote:

John Hadstate <jh113355@hotmail.com> writes:

USENET is broken. It was designed for an era when intelligent,
educated people used it to get real work done. It is highly
vulnerable to exploitation by degenerates, and it should surprise no
one that this has happened.

I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater as it is otherwise a
great medium for discussion/consultation.

If the important groups were made moderated, would that not solve most
of the problem?

Removing posts from Google would fix most of the problem.

Graham

 

[msg]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

<snip>

Is it time to concede that Usenet is a flood plain? Is it time that the
repeated spams from certain known regular spammers are to be considered a
kind of beginning to a mindless assault on Usenet that forces us to leave
it to the flood as it grows to the point where no real population can be
maintained?

What do you suppose are the essential reasons for the dominance of
Yahoo groups for focused technical discussions as opposed to Usenet and
conventional mailing lists? Many of the Yahoo groups are unmoderated
so that is not a prevailing excuse for the abandonment of Usenet.
Many of the Yahoo groups get a lot of spam.

Why consign public information to a private company's service without
the benefit of public archiving? Is this a generational thing?

Regards,

Michael

 

[mc]

Is it time to concede that Usenet is a flood plain? Is it time that the
repeated spams from certain known regular spammers are to be considered a

What do you suppose are the essential reasons for the dominance of
Yahoo groups for focused technical discussions as opposed to Usenet and
conventional mailing lists? Many of the Yahoo groups are unmoderated
so that is not a prevailing excuse for the abandonment of Usenet.
Many of the Yahoo groups get a lot of spam.

Why consign public information to a private company's service without
the benefit of public archiving? Is this a generational thing?

A couple of thoughts.

Maybe Google has succeeded in convincing the world that they run Usenet
(that it's really Google Groups). If so, this may have backfired on them --
if people don't realize Usenet is noncommercial, then Google may not be the
commercial one that they choose to use.

Also, Yahoo has terms of use and, at least potentially, the possibility of
enforcing them.

 

[msg]

msg wrote:

<snip>

Why consign public information to a private company's service without
the benefit of public archiving? Is this a generational thing?

Lest I be reminded that Yahoo is publicly traded, let me rephrase
the above to read: Why consign public information to a commercial
service without the benefit of public archiving? Is this a
generational thing?

Regards,

Michael

 

[Peter A Forbes]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:49:37 -0500, msg <msg@_cybertheque.org_> wrote:

msg wrote:

snip


Why consign public information to a private company's service without
the benefit of public archiving? Is this a generational thing?


Lest I be reminded that Yahoo is publicly traded, let me rephrase
the above to read: Why consign public information to a commercial
service without the benefit of public archiving? Is this a
generational thing?

Regards,

Michael

Proprietary information (ie not Usenet) is 'useful' to control, it also
generates advertising revenue for both Google and Yahoo and gives them a large
locked-in audience for their other products.

Don't forget also that most people coming online in the past few years never
went through the BBS / Usenet phase that most older online people did, so they
had nothing to reference against.

Peter
--
Peter & Rita Forbes
Email: diesel@easynet.co.uk
Web: http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Randy Yates wrote:

John Hadstate <jh113355@hotmail.com> writes:

USENET is broken. It was designed for an era when intelligent,
educated people used it to get real work done. It is highly
vulnerable to exploitation by degenerates, and it should surprise no
one that this has happened.

I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater as it is otherwise a
great medium for discussion/consultation.

If the important groups were made moderated, would that not solve most
of the problem?

It would kill most groups, because someone has to read and approve every
message. I've heard of some newer moderation software that allows white
listing, but I have no details. Unless there is real time posting, the
group is fairly useless. Who wants to wait hours, or days for their
message to appear? Take a look ar Guy Macon's moderated newsgroup, or
any other moderated newsgroup for that matter.

news:rec.radio.broadcasting was an active moderated newsgroup. The
moderator died. Another finally took over, but the group is more or
less dead.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

travolta006@gmail.com wrote in
news:1185367790.527061.195760@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

Some utter shite

I tried a few days ago to mail abuse@blogspot.com
It took three days for a response, and when it came it looked like a
bounce. So either they're all asleep at the wheel or they're a bunch of
fakers all.

Is it time to concede that Usenet is a flood plain? Is it time that the
repeated spams from certain known regular spammers are to be considered a
kind of beginning to a mindless assault on Usenet that forces us to leave
it to the flood as it grows to the point where no real population can be
maintained?

Don't bother to answer this, it's just a bit of dismal rhetoric inspired by
the current weather and politicking in the UK right now, because in some
ways what's happening in Usenet is dismally similar.

/rant.

You do know that blogspot.com is owned by Google, don't you?

Registry Whois Domain Name: blogspot.com

Status: clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited,
clientUpdateProhibited

Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com

Expiration Date: 2010-07-31
Creation Date: 2000-07-31
Last Update Date: 2005-07-22

Name Servers:
ns1.google.com
ns2.google.com
ns3.google.com
ns4.google.com




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extended Info IP Address: 64.233.163.191
IP Location: United States
Website Status: active
Server Type: GWS/2.1
Alexa Trend/Rank: 1 Month: 14 3 Month: 15 (Ranked as blogger.com)
Page Views per Visit: 1 Month: 4.2 3 Month: 4.1
Cache Date: 2007-07-25 17:35:10 MST
Compare Archived Data: 2007-05-11






64.233.163.191 | google.com
Whois Archive Information Suggestions Web Search


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLD Availability*
Available Domains
.com .net .org .info .us .biz
Buy now at name.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Registry Whois
OrgName: Google Inc.
OrgID: GOGL
Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
City: Mountain View
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 94043
Country: US

NetRange: 64.233.160.0 - 64.233.191.255
CIDR: 64.233.160.0/19
NetName: GOOGLE
NetHandle: NET-64-233-160-0-1
Parent: NET-64-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
NameServer: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
NameServer: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
NameServer: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2003-08-18
Updated: 2007-04-10

RTechHandle: ZG39-ARIN
RTechName: Google Inc.
RTechPhone: +1-650-318-0200
RTechEmail: 64.233.163.191&email=0' border='0' align='middle'>

OrgTechHandle: ZG39-ARIN
OrgTechName: Google Inc.
OrgTechPhone: +1-650-318-0200
OrgTechEmail:

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-07-24 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:46A7B733.8286A05D@earthlink.net:

You do know that blogspot.com is owned by Google, don't you?

Registry Whois Domain Name: blogspot.com

No I didn't. That's not good news. If it's not possible to flag abuse to
them without them taking three days to decide to bounce the mail as if the
destinations didn't exist in the first place, it suggests that Google
actively protect the right of people to use Google Groups and other Google-
operated services to spam Usenet.

Maybe that's what they want, to turn it into a market place, to drive out
anyone who isn't interested in operating that way, by deliberately
encouraging people to beleive that Usenet is under their control, to use in
ways that ultimately can be harnessed to make money for whoever (Google in
this case) manages to exert the most influence on what goes on.

Until now I didn't think that Google could be so solidly blamed for the way
things are going. I am now convinced that they are. If they don't do
something to respect those who were on Usenet before them, they will
quickly convince others of this too, and that will undermine Google. Usenet
is still very big.

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9978E2CD5DF73zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130:

Until now I didn't think that Google could be so solidly blamed for
the way things are going. I am now convinced that they are. If they
don't do something to respect those who were on Usenet before them,
they will quickly convince others of this too, and that will undermine
Google. Usenet is still very big.

That makes me think of something, but no doubt this has all been royally
thrashed through before...

ISP's get paid, as do major Usenet providers. Both provide Usenet access,
and both can refuse to carry certain groups, and presumable also certain
posts. While moderation might not work, if enough providers had a way to
register spam flags from users, a threshold could be used to determine
automatically what messages to delete and not propagate. This could be
abused, no doubt, but at least it would take a major consensus. Most
spammers will get the required anti-votes more quickly than almost any
other poster.

If this idea was considered and found to be unworkable, maybe it's worth
looking at it again. The big Usenet providers especially, do a lot to
preserve Usenet in a workable form for those who pay, and the number of
paying non-spammers vastly outweighs the number of paying spammers, so the
logical economy of the idea is good, if nothing else.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

Lostgallifreyan <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9978E2CD5DF73zoodlewurdle@140.99.99.130:

Until now I didn't think that Google could be so solidly blamed for
the way things are going. I am now convinced that they are. If they
don't do something to respect those who were on Usenet before them,
they will quickly convince others of this too, and that will undermine
Google. Usenet is still very big.


That makes me think of something, but no doubt this has all been royally
thrashed through before...

ISP's get paid, as do major Usenet providers. Both provide Usenet access,
and both can refuse to carry certain groups, and presumable also certain
posts. While moderation might not work, if enough providers had a way to
register spam flags from users, a threshold could be used to determine
automatically what messages to delete and not propagate. This could be
abused, no doubt, but at least it would take a major consensus. Most
spammers will get the required anti-votes more quickly than almost any
other poster.

If this idea was considered and found to be unworkable, maybe it's worth
looking at it again. The big Usenet providers especially, do a lot to
preserve Usenet in a workable form for those who pay, and the number of
paying non-spammers vastly outweighs the number of paying spammers, so the
logical economy of the idea is good, if nothing else.

It should be based on IP address. A news server should reject any
posts that exceed a preset limit. Earthlink limits each account to 75
posts, per 24 hour period, per account. With broad band service, i get
eight accounts, so i could send a maximum of 600 messages in 24 hours.
How many people have a legitimate reason to exceed that in text
newsgroups? Another method would be to limit the number of newsgroups
an IP address can post to, in a 24 hour period. It might take hundreds
of years to hit every newsgroup that way.


They other problem is the anonymous mail to news remailers who don't
give a damn who they piss off.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[larwe]

On Jul 25, 3:41 pm, Peter A Forbes <die...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:

Don't forget also that most people coming online in the past few years never
went through the BBS / Usenet phase that most older online people did, so they
had nothing to reference against.

And most Nigerians have no concept of a business that doesn't revolve
around fraud, so that makes it OK?

 

[Chris Hills]

In article <7m9fa311isuk81tccs7icsea8091al8lo1@4ax.com>, Peter A Forbes
<diesel@easynet.co.uk> writes

Don't forget also that most people coming online in the past few years never
went through the BBS / Usenet phase that most older online people did, so they
had nothing to reference against.

You are wrong. We are STILL in the Usenet phase...

The problem is that a little knowledge is only a problem if you don't
know it is a little knowledge.

Some of the posters jump in with very little knowledge about the
Internet and completely the wrong attitude and then won't take advice.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:46A803B3.3D0532B7@earthlink.net:

It should be based on IP address. A news server should reject any
posts that exceed a preset limit. Earthlink limits each account to 75
posts, per 24 hour period, per account. With broad band service, i get
eight accounts, so i could send a maximum of 600 messages in 24 hours.
How many people have a legitimate reason to exceed that in text
newsgroups? Another method would be to limit the number of newsgroups
an IP address can post to, in a 24 hour period. It might take hundreds
of years to hit every newsgroup that way.

I don't think IP's will do it, at least not alone. Too many spammers know
about proxies. It's still worth trying, but I think like mail spam
blockers, there are certain tricks that can be automated and replace a lot
of human vigilance. If the users' spam flag method is set up, we can vote
off an obvious spam, and it gets deleted from online postings and is
retained and propagated only as a spam example. A few key points of its
content (IP, for example, or name, email, key words, routing info in
header, etc) will be compared against future flagged items, and if there
are enough matches, the automated system can set a blocking rule. Then it
should be semi 'intelligent' and take care of itself. If it gets it wrong,
and people start protesting that legitimate posts are failing to show up
(flagged by a similar method to spam, available at the thread top level),
the people who supervise the filter system should look to see if something
got overzealous, and put online those posts that were cached under the
blocking rule. Such caches might exist for all spam, with deletion after
three days. That way, no legit posts would be lost, unless someone really
fell asleep at the wheel.

The advantage of this idea is that unlike moderation it takes little
intervention, has some protection against loss of legit postings, takes
guidance from current effective spam-blocking practise, and allows almost
all posts to be immediately published and propagated.

They other problem is the anonymous mail to news remailers who don't
give a damn who they piss off.

I've heard that some news providers won't carry posts from others they
don't like. I'm not sure how true that is, but if it is, it could help
there, as the small ones who don't care will be blocked by all the big
ones. Court cases might result, but if the big ones can cite good reasons
they'll win. The small ones would have to police their own turf to survive.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:46A803B3.3D0532B7@earthlink.net:

It should be based on IP address. A news server should reject any
posts that exceed a preset limit. Earthlink limits each account to 75
posts, per 24 hour period, per account. With broad band service, i get
eight accounts, so i could send a maximum of 600 messages in 24 hours.
How many people have a legitimate reason to exceed that in text
newsgroups? Another method would be to limit the number of newsgroups
an IP address can post to, in a 24 hour period. It might take hundreds
of years to hit every newsgroup that way.



I don't think IP's will do it, at least not alone. Too many spammers know
about proxies.

How long would the proxies last, with all the greedy bastards trying
to use them at the same time?

It's still worth trying, but I think like mail spam
blockers, there are certain tricks that can be automated and replace a lot
of human vigilance. If the users' spam flag method is set up, we can vote
off an obvious spam, and it gets deleted from online postings and is
retained and propagated only as a spam example. A few key points of its
content (IP, for example, or name, email, key words, routing info in
header, etc) will be compared against future flagged items, and if there
are enough matches, the automated system can set a blocking rule. Then it
should be semi 'intelligent' and take care of itself. If it gets it wrong,
and people start protesting that legitimate posts are failing to show up
(flagged by a similar method to spam, available at the thread top level),
the people who supervise the filter system should look to see if something
got overzealous, and put online those posts that were cached under the
blocking rule. Such caches might exist for all spam, with deletion after
three days. That way, no legit posts would be lost, unless someone really
fell asleep at the wheel.

The advantage of this idea is that unlike moderation it takes little
intervention, has some protection against loss of legit postings, takes
guidance from current effective spam-blocking practise, and allows almost
all posts to be immediately published and propagated.

They other problem is the anonymous mail to news remailers who don't
give a damn who they piss off.


I've heard that some news providers won't carry posts from others they
don't like.

<http://www.google.com/search?q=RBL+blacklist&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GWYA>

Here is the information about my IP address:
http://openrbl.org/client/#24.110.34.161

Some RBL lists have blacklist everything from Earthhlink. I am
whitelised on two, blacklisted on two, and 32 neutrals.

I'm not sure how true that is, but if it is, it could help
there, as the small ones who don't care will be blocked by all the big
ones. Court cases might result, but if the big ones can cite good reasons
they'll win. The small ones would have to police their own turf to survive.

Or only take filtered peer feeds from the big guys. I still say that
mail and news server software has to be upgraded to verify the source of
any message, before accepting it. The extra overhead would still be
less than all the spam that is processed right now.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Lostgallifreyan]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:46A89D99.744B175B@earthlink.net:

How long would the proxies last, with all the greedy bastards trying
to use them at the same time?

There are lots of them, and each time one wears out that's just more new
stuff for a system to verify. That's the problem with veryfying sources. I
think it's best to assume innocence at first, no matter what, to be sure
that most people can publish quickly.

I agree the software could be updated to check sources better, but it can't
do anything with virgin data, there's nothing to compare with. That's where
the user spam flag idea comes in. That's how the system best learns what is
spam.

 

[clifto]

Lostgallifreyan wrote:

I've heard that some news providers won't carry posts from others they
don't like. I'm not sure how true that is, but if it is, it could help
there, as the small ones who don't care will be blocked by all the big
ones. Court cases might result, but if the big ones can cite good reasons
they'll win.

Good reason: "My server, my rules."

--
"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad
was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide
is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."
-- Jonah Goldberg