Spam !! - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Spam !! - Mozilla ; On 14.03.2008 14:55, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote: --- Original Message --- > Wonder if its scheme by Chris I to let it over run the groups to make > support useless? Of course not !!! Google is famous for ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: Spam !!

  1. Re: Spam !!

    On 14.03.2008 14:55, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > Wonder if its scheme by Chris I to let it over run the groups to make
    > support useless?



    Of course not !!! Google is famous for not paying any attention to spam.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  2. Re: Spam !!

    Jay Garcia wrote:
    > On 14.03.2008 02:07, Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
    >>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>> I am...but my Google Groups filtering can't reach out to the remote
    >>>> servers.
    >>>>
    >>>> Seriously, though -- I haven't seen a single spam in the groups I do
    >>>> here; is it happening in all of the groups on the server?
    >>> then you're not in the right groups. So far in the SM
    >>> support and dev groups.

    >> I saw Jay open the thread talking about "a lot of the support groups".
    >> (That's still up there.) I figured mozilla.support.firefox and
    >> mozilla.support.thunderbird were "support groups". Silly me. Now you
    >> say "SM support and dev groups". (That's still up there.) I didn't know
    >> support groups were dev groups. Or that SM support was "a lot of the
    >> support groups" like Jay's original comment addressed.

    >
    > .dev.* groups are differentiated from the .support.* groups, not the same.


    I know. I was trying to wake up the hippo.

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
    Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

  3. Re: Spam !!



    Terry R. wrote:
    > The date and time was 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, and on a whim, Jay Garcia
    > pounded out on the keyboard:
    >
    >> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>

    >
    > Yeah, we have to live with that crap


    Not really. Filter it.

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

  4. Re: Spam !!

    goodwin wrote:
    > On 3/13/2008 8:00 PM Leonidas Jones scribbled:
    >
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> On 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Not me O:-) But I've also wondered why it isn't being caught early.
    >>>

    >> I've now tried forwarding to abuse@mozilla.org. Maybe that will help.
    >>
    >> Lee

    >
    > unlikely, since abuse didn't originate at mozilla.


    I understand, but at least they could remove the posts.

    Lee

  5. Re: Spam !!

    On 3/13/2008 8:00 PM Leonidas Jones scribbled:

    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >> On 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Not me O:-) But I've also wondered why it isn't being caught early.
    >>

    >
    > I've now tried forwarding to abuse@mozilla.org. Maybe that will help.
    >
    > Lee


    unlikely, since abuse didn't originate at mozilla.

  6. Re: Spam !!

    On 3/13/2008 8:32 PM Q scribbled:

    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >> Who's minding this store anyways ??

    >
    > The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    > headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.


    mozilla.org is not the source - why would you report to mozilla abuse???

  7. Re: Spam !!

    On 3/13/2008 10:38 PM Ken Whiton scribbled:



    > I do a Whois lookup and send them to the poster's ISP too. The
    > ones I saw in the TB group earlier tonight all came from:
    > 118.175.129.141, which belongs to
    >
    > netname: totnet
    > descr: TOT Public Company Limited Bangkok
    >
    > with reports going to
    >
    > mail_abuse@tot.co.th
    >
    > Incidentally, is it generally sufficient to send just the
    > headers? I normally send the complete post, headers and body.


    Send the full spam, but in this case, you are farting in the wind.
    Source is black hat, could give a **** less...

  8. Re: Spam !!

    goodwin wrote:
    > On 3/13/2008 8:32 PM Q scribbled:
    >
    >> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>
    >>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>> Who's minding this store anyways ??

    >> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.

    >
    > mozilla.org is not the source - why would you report to mozilla abuse???


    Is it possible that Mozilla would then dump anything coming from that
    address??

    Daniel

  9. Re: Spam !!

    Daniel wrote:
    > goodwin wrote:
    >> On 3/13/2008 8:32 PM Q scribbled:
    >>
    >>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >>> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.

    >>
    >> mozilla.org is not the source - why would you report to mozilla abuse???

    >
    > Is it possible that Mozilla would then dump anything coming from that
    > address??
    >
    > Daniel



    Right, then the spammer will use YOUR address next time, and YOU get dumped!

    Chasing email addressses is nonsense, get the web sites that benefit
    from the spam.

  10. Re: Spam !!

    Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > goodwin wrote:
    >> On 3/13/2008 8:00 PM Leonidas Jones scribbled:
    >>
    >>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>> On 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Not me O:-) But I've also wondered why it isn't being caught early.
    >>>>
    >>> I've now tried forwarding to abuse@mozilla.org. Maybe that will help.
    >>>
    >>> Lee

    >>
    >> unlikely, since abuse didn't originate at mozilla.

    >
    > I understand, but at least they could remove the posts.
    >
    > Lee


    Wouldn't Mozilla be able to put a filter on to stop posts from the IP
    address??

    Daniel

  11. Re: Spam !!

    On 15-03-2008 09:57 CET, Moz Champion (Dan) composed this enchanting
    statement:
    > Daniel wrote:
    >> goodwin wrote:
    >>> On 3/13/2008 8:32 PM Q scribbled:
    >>>
    >>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in
    >>>>> unencumbered.
    >>>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >>>> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.
    >>>
    >>> mozilla.org is not the source - why would you report to mozilla
    >>> abuse???

    >>
    >> Is it possible that Mozilla would then dump anything coming from that
    >> address??
    >>
    >> Daniel

    >
    > Right, then the spammer will use YOUR address next time, and YOU get
    > dumped!
    >
    > Chasing email addressses is nonsense, get the web sites that benefit
    > from the spam.


    This concerns reporting an IP address. The hosting of the web sites
    probably won't care in this case.

    I would file a report with 'spamcop.net', unless google groups still
    rejects the reports.

    Writing to the google groups abuse desk, does not help. They just
    forward your message to gmail.....!

    This leaves only one possible route: forward to the host of the IP
    address in the NNTP header tag. Escalate if you do not receive a reply
    by returning mail.

    --
    Kind regards,
    Melchert

    (MacOS 10.3.9 / Firefox 2.0, Thunderbird 2.0)

  12. Re: Spam !!

    On 14.03.2008 21:08, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Jay Garcia to
    generate the following:? :
    > On 14.03.2008 14:55, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >
    >> Wonder if its scheme by Chris I to let it over run the groups to make
    >> support useless?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Of course not !!! Google is famous for not paying any attention to spam.
    >
    >


    yepp - they also take no notice of what C.I does.... ;-)

    reg

  13. Re: Spam !!

    On 15.03.2008 06:08, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Leonidas Jones
    to generate the following:? :
    > goodwin wrote:
    >
    >> On 3/13/2008 8:00 PM Leonidas Jones scribbled:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Not me O:-) But I've also wondered why it isn't being caught early.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> I've now tried forwarding to abuse@mozilla.org. Maybe that will help.
    >>>
    >>> Lee
    >>>

    >> unlikely, since abuse didn't originate at mozilla.
    >>

    >
    > I understand, but at least they could remove the posts.
    >
    > Lee
    >



    Chris I is the group moderator - it's HIS JOB to sort this out!

    reg

  14. Re: Spam !!

    On 14.03.2008 16:16, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Jay Garcia to
    generate the following:? :
    > On 14.03.2008 09:01, Gus Richter wrote:
    >
    > --- Original Message ---
    >
    >
    >> Ken Whiton wrote:
    >>
    >>> *-* On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:32:08 -0500,
    >>> *-* In Article 20080313233208.1023bd5b@bellgrove.remarqs.net,
    >>> *-* Q wrote
    >>> *-* About Re: Spam !!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being
    >>>>> inundated with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in
    >>>>> unencumbered. Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>>
    >>>> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >>>> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.
    >>>>
    >>> I do a Whois lookup and send them to the poster's ISP too. The
    >>> ones I saw in the TB group earlier tonight all came from:
    >>> 118.175.129.141, which belongs to
    >>>
    >>> netname: totnet
    >>> descr: TOT Public Company Limited Bangkok
    >>>
    >>> with reports going to
    >>>
    >>> mail_abuse@tot.co.th
    >>>
    >>> Incidentally, is it generally sufficient to send just the
    >>> headers? I normally send the complete post, headers and body.
    >>>

    >> For virus included detection information in the header such as:
    >> X-pstnvirus: W32/Zhelatin.gen!eml
    >> I simply send the header only.
    >>
    >> For Spam I would send the header and complete mail, although if lengthy
    >> I would trim somewhat, keep the original (for a reasonable time) and
    >> inform them of this and ask if they would like the complete version. If
    >> I receive no acknowledgment at all, after say a week, then I would
    >> resend the whole thing every time.
    >>
    >> This method has served me well for years.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I follow the convention used by SpamCop and that is to send the entire
    > message, header - body and all. The body is sent because it usually
    > contains links and the host server of those links may be interested in
    > what is coming out of their domain and "may" take appropriate action.
    >
    >
    >


    ..... and anyways, what use is a Spam Report without the actual spam
    (message body) included??

    reg

  15. Re: Spam !!

    On 14.03.2008 18:06, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Terry R. to
    generate the following:? :
    > The date and time was 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, and on a whim, Jay Garcia
    > pounded out on the keyboard:
    >
    >
    >> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Yeah, we have to live with that crap, and a little group can't do
    > posting in MTMM. Go figure.
    >
    >


    well Terry - that "little group" was violating lots and lots of
    etiquettes etc, as well as twisting the moderator's knickers into
    balls-crunching knots. Dumping pics in a MultiMedia group... what will
    they think of next tst tst tst!

    reg

  16. Re: Spam !!

    On 14.03.2008 20:54, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Phillip M.
    Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
    > Jay Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>
    >>

    > We didn't have the Crxx on secnews servers at Netscape. perhaps we need
    > to get off of Giga news, and use strictly secure servers.
    >
    >


    ..... and miss-out on ChrisI's moderating?? what will you suggest next,
    Phillip??

    reg

  17. Re: Spam !!

    On 15.03.2008 01:00, goodwin wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On 3/13/2008 8:00 PM Leonidas Jones scribbled:
    >
    >> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >>> On 3/13/2008 8:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Not me O:-) But I've also wondered why it isn't being caught early.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I've now tried forwarding to abuse@mozilla.org. Maybe that will help.
    >>
    >> Lee

    >
    > unlikely, since abuse didn't originate at mozilla.


    No, but they can pressure Google to take action.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  18. Re: Spam !!

    On 15.03.2008 01:02, goodwin wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On 3/13/2008 8:32 PM Q scribbled:
    >
    >> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>
    >>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in unencumbered.
    >>> Who's minding this store anyways ??

    >>
    >> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.

    >
    > mozilla.org is not the source - why would you report to mozilla abuse???


    Pressuring Google from all angles may help, that's why.

    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  19. Re: Spam !!

    On 15.03.2008 06:14, Melchert Fruitema wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On 15-03-2008 09:57 CET, Moz Champion (Dan) composed this enchanting
    > statement:
    >> Daniel wrote:
    >>> goodwin wrote:
    >>>> On 3/13/2008 8:32 PM Q scribbled:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being inundated
    >>>>>> with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in
    >>>>>> unencumbered.
    >>>>>> Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >>>>> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.
    >>>>
    >>>> mozilla.org is not the source - why would you report to mozilla
    >>>> abuse???
    >>>
    >>> Is it possible that Mozilla would then dump anything coming from that
    >>> address??
    >>>
    >>> Daniel

    >>
    >> Right, then the spammer will use YOUR address next time, and YOU get
    >> dumped!
    >>
    >> Chasing email addressses is nonsense, get the web sites that benefit
    >> from the spam.

    >
    > This concerns reporting an IP address. The hosting of the web sites
    > probably won't care in this case.
    >
    > I would file a report with 'spamcop.net', unless google groups still
    > rejects the reports.
    >
    > Writing to the google groups abuse desk, does not help. They just
    > forward your message to gmail.....!
    >
    > This leaves only one possible route: forward to the host of the IP
    > address in the NNTP header tag. Escalate if you do not receive a reply
    > by returning mail.
    >


    Re: report to SpamCop

    SpamCop no longer accepts usenet spam.


    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

  20. Re: Spam !!

    On 15.03.2008 06:38, squaredancer wrote:

    --- Original Message ---

    > On 14.03.2008 16:16, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Jay Garcia to
    > generate the following:? :
    >> On 14.03.2008 09:01, Gus Richter wrote:
    >>
    >> --- Original Message ---
    >>
    >>
    >>> Ken Whiton wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> *-* On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:32:08 -0500,
    >>>> *-* In Article 20080313233208.1023bd5b@bellgrove.remarqs.net,
    >>>> *-* Q wrote
    >>>> *-* About Re: Spam !!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Seems like a lot of the support groups are literally being
    >>>>>> inundated with porno spam lately and they just continue to come in
    >>>>>> unencumbered. Who's minding this store anyways ??
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> The ones I've seen have been posted through Google. Forward their
    >>>>> headers to the abuse addresses for Google and for mozilla.org.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I do a Whois lookup and send them to the poster's ISP too. The
    >>>> ones I saw in the TB group earlier tonight all came from:
    >>>> 118.175.129.141, which belongs to
    >>>>
    >>>> netname: totnet
    >>>> descr: TOT Public Company Limited Bangkok
    >>>>
    >>>> with reports going to
    >>>>
    >>>> mail_abuse@tot.co.th
    >>>>
    >>>> Incidentally, is it generally sufficient to send just the
    >>>> headers? I normally send the complete post, headers and body.
    >>>>
    >>> For virus included detection information in the header such as:
    >>> X-pstnvirus: W32/Zhelatin.gen!eml
    >>> I simply send the header only.
    >>>
    >>> For Spam I would send the header and complete mail, although if lengthy
    >>> I would trim somewhat, keep the original (for a reasonable time) and
    >>> inform them of this and ask if they would like the complete version. If
    >>> I receive no acknowledgment at all, after say a week, then I would
    >>> resend the whole thing every time.
    >>>
    >>> This method has served me well for years.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I follow the convention used by SpamCop and that is to send the entire
    >> message, header - body and all. The body is sent because it usually
    >> contains links and the host server of those links may be interested in
    >> what is coming out of their domain and "may" take appropriate action.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > .... and anyways, what use is a Spam Report without the actual spam
    > (message body) included??
    >
    > reg


    Moot point anyway because SpamCop no longer accepts usenet spam reports.


    --
    Jay Garcia Netscape Champion
    UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast