IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey - Mozilla

This is a discussion on IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey - Mozilla ; Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam storm that is overwhelming alt.com.freeware. All spam posts are from a few IP addresses but with random from and subjects. If Seamonkey cannot help any suggestions for an alternative ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

  1. IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam storm that is
    overwhelming alt.com.freeware.

    All spam posts are from a few IP addresses but with random from and
    subjects.

    If Seamonkey cannot help any suggestions for an alternative news reader?


    Laurie


  2. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Laurie wrote:
    > Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam storm that is
    > overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >
    > All spam posts are from a few IP addresses but with random from and
    > subjects.


    No, it can't

    > If Seamonkey cannot help any suggestions for an alternative news reader?


    you're on your own for that. You might want to look into
    nfilter: http://www.nfilter.org/faq.html, but I can't
    guarantee it will work for SM

    --
    Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup
    only. And only click on the Reply button, not the Reply All
    or Reply to Author. Thanks!

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  3. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Laurie wrote:
    > Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam storm that is
    > overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >
    > All spam posts are from a few IP addresses but with random from and
    > subjects.


    Seems not, I don't know why... SM could allow more headers than it does.
    NOTE: using other headers would slow down message download, because
    overview wouldn't have those headers.
    >
    > If Seamonkey cannot help any suggestions for an alternative news reader?
    >
    >
    > Laurie
    >



    --
    Bill Davidsen
    "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
    the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

  4. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Bill Davidsen wrote:
    > Laurie wrote:
    >> Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam storm that is
    >> overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >>
    >> All spam posts are from a few IP addresses but with random from and
    >> subjects.

    >
    > Seems not, I don't know why... SM could allow more headers than it does.
    > NOTE: using other headers would slow down message download, because
    > overview wouldn't have those headers.
    >>
    >> If Seamonkey cannot help any suggestions for an alternative news reader?


    Filtering on that level belongs to the news server. For example, I
    subscribe to Supernes and don't see any of it.

    B/

  5. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Laurie wrote:
    >>>Is there any way with Seamonkey to block
    >>>the usenet spam storm that is overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >>>If Seamonkey cannot help
    >>>any suggestions for an alternative news reader?
    >>>

    Brian Mailman wrote:
    >Filtering on that level belongs to the news server.
    >

    Yup. Why waste *your* bandwidth on what is obviously crap?
    A provider that wastes *their* bandwidth on it as well
    is just clueless and doesn't deserve your $$.

    >For example, I subscribe to [Supernews] and don't see any of it.
    >

    I remember hearing a glowing report on them earlier this month:
    http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...price.is.right

    There are other good providers:
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp....te.news-server

    The logical step is to dump Giganews and get a good provider.


  6. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    JeffM wrote:
    > Laurie wrote:
    >>>> Is there any way with Seamonkey to block
    >>>> the usenet spam storm that is overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >>>> If Seamonkey cannot help
    >>>> any suggestions for an alternative news reader?
    >>>>

    > Brian Mailman wrote:
    >> Filtering on that level belongs to the news server.
    >>

    > Yup. Why waste *your* bandwidth on what is obviously crap?
    > A provider that wastes *their* bandwidth on it as well
    > is just clueless and doesn't deserve your $$.
    >
    >> For example, I subscribe to [Supernews] and don't see any of it.
    >>

    > I remember hearing a glowing report on them earlier this month:
    > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...price.is.right
    >
    > There are other good providers:
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....te.news-server
    >
    > The logical step is to dump Giganews and get a good provider.


    No.

    That's not logical. As proof, there's been a couple of threads in
    a.c.f. documenting providers that had *filtered out legitimate posts*
    during these recent attacks. Authentic posts have been nuked. IOW, no
    sporge* does not equal having a "good" provider.

    Unless "good" is now defined as quite possibly throwing the baby out
    with the bathwater.

    Bashing providers because sporge leaks through and, similarly, praising
    providers for not seeing any is not "logic." Comforting as it may be.

    -Craig

    P.S. Supernews was an explicit target of one of these waves, check
    sci.crypt for more on that.

    *or more accurately, crapflooding


  7. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Brian Mailman wrote:
    > Bill Davidsen wrote:
    >> Laurie wrote:
    >>> Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam storm that
    >>> is overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >>>
    >>> All spam posts are from a few IP addresses but with random from and
    >>> subjects.

    >>
    >> Seems not, I don't know why... SM could allow more headers than it
    >> does. NOTE: using other headers would slow down message download,
    >> because overview wouldn't have those headers.
    >>>
    >>> If Seamonkey cannot help any suggestions for an alternative news reader?

    >
    > Filtering on that level belongs to the news server. For example, I
    > subscribe to Supernes and don't see any of it.
    >

    Supernews will let you set a filter on their server? I think you mean
    they will be allowed to determine what you (ie. all customers) will and
    won't see. But on man's spam is another man's useful related discussion,
    so I'm leery of server filters. Hell, I'm leery of idiot moderators as
    well, they can get carried away as well.

    --
    Bill Davidsen
    "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
    the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

  8. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Craig wrote:
    > JeffM wrote:
    >> Laurie wrote:
    >>>>> Is there any way with Seamonkey to block
    >>>>> the usenet spam storm that is overwhelming alt.com.freeware.
    >>>>> If Seamonkey cannot help
    >>>>> any suggestions for an alternative news reader?
    >>>>>

    >> Brian Mailman wrote:
    >>> Filtering on that level belongs to the news server.
    >>>

    >> Yup. Why waste *your* bandwidth on what is obviously crap?
    >> A provider that wastes *their* bandwidth on it as well
    >> is just clueless and doesn't deserve your $$.
    >>
    >>> For example, I subscribe to [Supernews] and don't see any of it.
    >>>

    >> I remember hearing a glowing report on them earlier this month:
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...price.is.right
    >>
    >> There are other good providers:
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....te.news-server
    >>
    >> The logical step is to dump Giganews and get a good provider.

    >
    > No.
    >
    > That's not logical. As proof, there's been a couple of threads in
    > a.c.f. documenting providers that had *filtered out legitimate posts*
    > during these recent attacks. Authentic posts have been nuked. IOW, no
    > sporge* does not equal having a "good" provider.


    Another reason to use a good news provider. Filtering isn't
    set-and-forget, and takes constant monitoring.
    >
    > Unless "good" is now defined as quite possibly throwing the baby out
    > with the bathwater.


    See above. Filters need tweaking constantly.

    >
    > P.S. Supernews was an explicit target of one of these waves, check
    > sci.crypt for more on that.


    It's not about football teams, here. There's no false competition involved.

    It's about the concept.

    B/

  9. Re: IP blocking for usenet spam with Seamonkey

    Brian Mailman wrote:
    > Craig wrote:
    >> JeffM wrote:
    >>> Laurie wrote:
    >>>>>> Is there any way with Seamonkey to block the usenet spam
    >>>>>> storm that is overwhelming alt.com.freeware. If Seamonkey
    >>>>>> cannot help any suggestions for an alternative news reader?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>> Brian Mailman wrote:
    >>>> Filtering on that level belongs to the news server.
    >>>>
    >>> Yup. Why waste *your* bandwidth on what is obviously crap? A
    >>> provider that wastes *their* bandwidth on it as well is just
    >>> clueless and doesn't deserve your $$.
    >>>
    >>>> For example, I subscribe to [Supernews] and don't see any of
    >>>> it.
    >>>>
    >>> I remember hearing a glowing report on them earlier this month:
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...price.is.right
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> There are other good providers:
    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....te.news-server
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The logical step is to dump Giganews and get a good provider.

    >>
    >> No.
    >>
    >> That's not logical. As proof, there's been a couple of threads in
    >> a.c.f. documenting providers that had *filtered out legitimate
    >> posts* during these recent attacks. Authentic posts have been
    >> nuked. IOW, no sporge* does not equal having a "good" provider.

    >
    > Another reason to use a good news provider.


    Sure. And in my case, a "good provider" doesn't drop legitimate posts
    in its drive to drop sporge.

    > Filtering isn't set-and-forget, and takes constant monitoring.
    >>
    >> Unless "good" is now defined as quite possibly throwing the baby
    >> out with the bathwater.

    >
    > See above. Filters need tweaking constantly.
    >
    >>
    >> P.S. Supernews was an explicit target of one of these waves, check
    >> sci.crypt for more on that.

    >
    > It's not about football teams, here. There's no false competition
    > involved.


    Didn't say it was. Didn't intend to imply it either.
    >
    > It's about the concept.


    Only until the rubber hits the road.

    -Craig

+ Reply to Thread