How to interpret this - Networking

This is a discussion on How to interpret this - Networking ; I enter: nslookup 218.111.104.105 Results: Server: cns3.tm.net.my Address: 202.188.0.133 Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my Address: 218.111.104.105 What is the meaning of the line "Name" ? Thanks....

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: How to interpret this

  1. How to interpret this

    I enter: nslookup 218.111.104.105

    Results:

    Server: cns3.tm.net.my
    Address: 202.188.0.133

    Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my
    Address: 218.111.104.105


    What is the meaning of the line "Name" ?

    Thanks.

  2. Re: How to interpret this

    In news:b919f317-79c7-4789-a26b-26eb9aca8d74@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
    sb5309@yahoo.com typed:

    > Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my
    > Address: 218.111.104.105
    >
    > What is the meaning of the line "Name" ?


    It's the "N" in FQDN.





  3. Re: How to interpret this

    On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article
    ,
    sb5309@yahoo.com wrote:

    NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >I enter: nslookup 218.111.104.105
    >
    >Results:
    >
    >Server: cns3.tm.net.my
    >Address: 202.188.0.133
    >
    >Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my
    >Address: 218.111.104.105
    >
    >What is the meaning of the line "Name" ?


    It means the idiots who set up the zone file at dnsteam.tm.net.my have
    a wild-card entry for a number of hosts - if you try others in the range
    218.111.104.* (random tries between 218.111.77.123 and 218.111.127.123
    tested at 03:00 UTC) you get the same answer. Alternatively, some klown
    wrote a script to create the reverse zone file, intending each address
    to have the 'in-addr.arpa name prepending (in front of) the tm.net.my
    domain name, and didn't bother to check the results. In either case,
    it's a good demonstration of a lack of skill and failing to check their
    work.

    As you are posting from this domain, you might pass the word to the
    domain admin that his work is defective. This type of "generic" PTR
    record will prevent reception of mail at many mail servers, but then
    it's tm.net.my, and that has it's own problems with blacklists.

    Old guy

  4. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

    > NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    > reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.


    Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
    "dramatically reduced" chances?

    DS

  5. Re: How to interpret this

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

    > On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
    >
    >> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    >> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >
    > Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
    > "dramatically reduced" chances?


    Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID: googlegroups.com"
    due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse originating there.

  6. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
    > > On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:


    > >> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    > >> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.


    > > Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
    > > "dramatically reduced" chances?


    > Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID: googlegroups.com"
    > due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse originating there.


    1) Who is "us"?

    2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some
    "us" that doesn't include you?

    3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of
    anything more than a couple of cranks?

    4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
    bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy
    drive is not a "real computer".

    DS

  7. Re: How to interpret this

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:38:53 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
    > On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:


    >> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
    >> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
    >> originating there.

    >
    > 1) Who is "us"?


    Are you some kind of moron?

    > 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
    > that doesn't include you?


    For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
    from google in my scorefile.

    > 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
    > more than a couple of cranks?


    I need no evidence, why do you? Calling people who choose to block spam
    as "cranks" is not really polite.

    > 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
    > bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy drive
    > is not a "real computer".


    It's no more bizarre than your questions.

    Google is a spam sewer and Moe's advice is useful and proper. I don't
    give a flying **** if you get blocked or not. Use a real news service if
    you care about the maximum number of interested people seeing your
    articles. Or not.


  8. Re: How to interpret this

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
    article , Dave Uhring wrote:

    >David Schwartz wrote:


    >> Dave Uhring wrote:


    >>> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
    >>> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
    >>> originating there.


    >> 1) Who is "us"?


    Why not wander over to the Usenet newsgroup 'news.software.readers'
    and perhaps you'll find some hints. You might even discover some
    new acronyms - like UDP (though I doubt it will happen again).

    Several years ago, individuals would file abuse complaints for spam,
    whether in mail or Usenet. Providers like charter, comcast, roadrunner,
    qwest, sbc/what-ever-they-call-themselves-now and others would (at best)
    respond with an auto-reply from an ignore-bot. For email, the result of
    this lack of response was blacklists that people created to know who
    NOT to accept mail from. Usenet has had the capability for over ten
    years for the individual to block posts if the administrator of some
    server didn't want to deal with abuse complaints.

    >Are you some kind of moron?


    He's certainly a google supporter.

    >> 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
    >> that doesn't include you?

    >
    >For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
    >from google in my scorefile.


    An advantage of using a real news reader and news server is that you can
    set scores for individual or multiple groups, or global scores. Not only
    am I blocking googlegroups.com in c.o.l.m (as well as seven other groups
    of the 80 I try to scan daily), I'm also blocking _replies_ to
    googlegroups posts in two groups, where some readers can't resist
    replying to such googlespam.

    >> 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
    >> more than a couple of cranks?


    Lessee, there is a newsgroup statistics article posted to this group, and
    you might look for such posts - often weekly and occasionally monthly -
    in other groups. Notice what is _missing_ in those posts.

    >I need no evidence, why do you? Calling people who choose to block spam
    >as "cranks" is not really polite.


    Some of us really aren't interested in athletic shoes, watches, pills,
    tobacco products, and other garbage being spamvertised by google posters,
    and don't see the need to try to come up with a multitude of filter rules
    to catch the morphing spammers. One rule is all it takes, and I don't
    see any indication that I am missing _useful_ posts because of it.

    >> 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
    >> bizarre prejudice,


    You might want to look at a packet sniffer and see what the traffic
    looks like when you are using google. Never mind the advertisements that
    google inserts (gee - do I miss that crap?) into their output. You
    should also notice the scripting they are trying to use to be able to
    provide you with a "better experience" - meaning more targeted ads I
    suppose. That's something I don't get from a real news server. The
    whole reason for the _existence_ of google is advertisements. The
    Usenet archive and search engine are merely attractions google uses to
    get you to view the advertisements they've sold. If I can get the same
    results without the ads, common sense says I'm going elsewhere.

    >Google is a spam sewer


    and it ignores abuse complaints, so people ignoring googlegroups is
    simply common sense.

    Old guy

  9. Re: How to interpret this

    On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:55:13 -0500, Moe Trin wrote:

    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking,
    > in article , Dave Uhring
    > wrote:


    >>Are you some kind of moron?

    >
    > He's certainly a google supporter.


    And a windows user here to troll and provide no useful input.

  10. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 10, 6:21 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:

    > On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:38:53 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:


    > > On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:


    > >> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
    > >> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
    > >> originating there.


    > > 1) Who is "us"?


    > Are you some kind of moron?


    It's a serious question. Who are you talking about? It obviously
    doesn't include you, since you read my post, and I usually post from
    Google.

    > > 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
    > > that doesn't include you?


    > For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
    > from google in my scorefile.


    In other words, this is an "us" that doesn't include you.

    > > 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
    > > more than a couple of cranks?


    > I need no evidence, why do you?


    Because you are the one making a claim, and I am the skeptic. If you
    don't have any evidence to support your claim, why should anyone take
    it seriously?

    > Calling people who choose to block spam
    > as "cranks" is not really polite.


    What you mean is calling people cranks *because* they choose to block
    spam is not really polite. As far as I know, I have never done this.
    Calling people cranks because they advise others to block spam in ways
    that cause significant collateral damage, on the other hand, is quite
    reasonable.

    I'm not sure why this matters though, because this discussion is about
    how many people block google groups, not about whether it's a good
    idea or a bad idea to do so.

    > > 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
    > > bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy drive
    > > is not a "real computer".


    > It's no more bizarre than your questions.


    > Google is a spam sewer and Moe's advice is useful and proper. I don't
    > give a flying **** if you get blocked or not. Use a real news service if
    > you care about the maximum number of interested people seeing your
    > articles. Or not.


    You have repeated your claim rather than presented evidence for it.
    What is a "real" news service? One that meets with your personal
    approval?

    DS

  11. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 11, 2:08 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:

    > And a windows user here to troll and provide no useful input.


    In what twisted world is this not trolling:

    >>NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
    >>dramatically reduces the chance of your post being seen.
    >>Find a real news server.


    but this is:

    >>Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate
    >>these "dramatically reduced" chances?


    And, by the way, I use Windows on my desktop machines and Linux on my
    servers. I manage about ten desktops and about thirty servers. Some of
    my code was accepted into the Linux kernel in 2002.

    DS



  12. Re: How to interpret this

    On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:27:17 -0700 (PDT), David Schwartz wrote:
    >
    > It's a serious question. Who are you talking about? It obviously
    > doesn't include you, since you read my post, and I usually post from
    > Google.


    Well true enough there. Sorry you did not like the advice given.

    > In other words, this is an "us" that doesn't include you.


    Of course.

    > Because you are the one making a claim, and I am the skeptic. If you
    > don't have any evidence to support your claim, why should anyone take
    > it seriously?


    You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.
    You can also use http://groups.google.com/advanced_search and place
    the author in the Author box to check on anyone. Two example results:
    Results 1 - 10 of about 20,700 for author:bit author:twister
    Results 1 - 10 of about 6,410 for author:moe author:trin


    I for one, block posts from google in some news groups,
    (comp.os.linux.setup, news.software.readers)

    There was a fair thread about how to try blocking the spew in one
    group and general convention was to kill on google posts.


    > What is a "real" news service?


    For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
    offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the post header.
    That would allow me to also send abuse complaints to poster's ISP to see if
    I could get his account terminated. :-)


  13. Re: How to interpret this

    On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:38:53 -0700 (PDT), David Schwartz wrote:
    >On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring wrote:
    >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
    >> > On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:


    >> >> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    >> >> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.


    >> > Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
    >> > "dramatically reduced" chances?


    >> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID: googlegroups.com"
    >> due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse originating there.


    >1) Who is "us"?

    everybody who is sick and tired of all the spam that google-groups spews due
    to their spammer friendly method of giving accounts to any spammer who wants
    one.

    Look up almost any discussion of killfiles and score files and you'll see GG being
    filtered.

  14. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:

    > You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.


    I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:

    "NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
    dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."

    > For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
    > offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
    > post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
    > to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)


    There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
    availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
    in each possible direction more than once.

    I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
    people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
    google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
    google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.

    I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
    are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
    speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
    services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
    anonymous way to pay.

    DS

  15. Re: How to interpret this

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:10:14 -0700 (PDT), David Schwartz wrote:
    > On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:
    >
    >> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.

    >
    > I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:
    >
    > "NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
    > dramatically
    > reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."


    Apparently you just want to argue. All Moe was indicating, is the
    usual subject matter experts who are normally busy people have little
    time to waste time wading through the google spews. They just add google to
    the kill file and be done with it.

    > There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
    > availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
    > in each possible direction more than once.


    Yep, you are trolling for an argument. google part of this thread
    is about subject matter experts scoring google as -9999


    > I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
    > people who killfile posts through google.


    Just more argument crap. The great majority of people do not post I am
    killing google posts when they add it to their score file.


    > I've been posting through google and other news servers for many,
    > many years and have seen google's reach be precisely the same as
    > everyone else's.


    There is absolutely no correlation with "many, many years" and why
    people are filtering out google posts at this time.


    > I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you are,


    More argumentative misdirection crap. My reason given was all about
    Usenet abuse and getting the offender terminated. Nothing was said
    about "anonymous speech".

    > and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
    > speech too high, it will cease to exist.


    More argumentative misdirection crap. Nothing was said about "allowing
    anonymous speech"

    google continues to let the abuse flourish, more people kill file google posts.

    > It's very hard for non-free services to offer anonymous speech
    > because a lot of people have no anonymous way to pay.


    Ah, final wrap up of misdirection crap with additional flame bait.
    It has no bearing on kill filing google posts because of google
    refusals to kill spewing accounts.

    It was fun playing but I see it is a waste of time.

    You have a good day.

  16. Re: How to interpret this

    David Schwartz writes:

    >On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:


    >> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.


    >I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:


    >"NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
    >dramatically
    >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."


    And this is dishonest how? Many people have a news filter on google groups
    since so much spam originates there, as he said. If your post is filtered
    out, it is not seen. If it is not seen it is not answered.


    >> For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
    >> offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
    >> post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
    >> to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)


    >There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
    >availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
    >in each possible direction more than once.


    >I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
    >people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
    >google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
    >google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.


    And anyone who sees the world differently than you do is dishonest?



    >I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
    >are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
    >speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
    >services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
    >anonymous way to pay.


    But for some reason you do not believe that anonymous speech could be
    misused to throw out garbage into newsgroups? Note the non-anonymity in
    payment does not necessarily mean non-annonymity in posting.


    >DS


  17. Re: How to interpret this

    David Schwartz wrote:
    > I've been posting [...] for many, many years


    I had a feeling your name was familiar.

    Regards,
    Chris

  18. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 12, 8:50 am, Unruh wrote:

    > David Schwartz writes:


    > >On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:


    > >> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.


    > >I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:


    > >"NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
    > >dramatically
    > >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."


    > And this is dishonest how?


    In that he was unable to back it up with *any* evidence at all. All he
    did was repeat it, and that's all you've done.

    > Many people have a news filter on google groups
    > since so much spam originates there, as he said.


    And there, you repeated it. How many is "many"?

    > If your post is filtered
    > out, it is not seen. If it is not seen it is not answered.


    I have been posting from google for many years. I have never had a
    post not answered. Never, ever. Perhaps my posts were seen by fewer
    people, owing to the people who killfile google. But perhaps they were
    seen by more, due to google's excellent propagation. I don't know. But
    I don't pretend I do.

    > >> For *me*, it would be a server who's abuse admin would terminate the
    > >> offender upon complaints and provide the ip of the poster in the
    > >> post header. That would allow me to also send abuse complaints
    > >> to poster's ISP to see if I could get his account terminated. :-)


    > >There are huge trade-offs between privacy, abuse handling, and the
    > >availability of human labor. I've seen google strike the balance wrong
    > >in each possible direction more than once.
    > >I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
    > >people who killfile posts through google. I've been posting through
    > >google and other news servers for many, many years and have seen
    > >google's reach be precisely the same as everyone else's.


    > And anyone who sees the world differently than you do is dishonest?


    No, anyone who pretends that their own prejudices are fact, and when
    called upon to defend it *repeats* the prejudices is dihonest. If Moe
    has any evidence, let's see it. If not, his pretending that what he is
    saying is an obvious, well-known fact is dishonest.

    > >I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you
    > >are, and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
    > >speech too high, it will cease to exist. It's very hard for non-free
    > >services to offer anonymous speech because a lot of people have no
    > >anonymous way to pay.


    > But for some reason you do not believe that anonymous speech could be
    > misused to throw out garbage into newsgroups?


    I do. I know it is. As I said, it's a complex trade off. I've seen
    google get it wrong in all directions.

    > Note the non-anonymity in
    > payment does not necessarily mean non-annonymity in posting.


    There are plenty of people in jail who would disagree with you. The
    United States is not the whole planet.

    DS

  19. Re: How to interpret this

    On Apr 12, 4:57 am, Bit Twister wrote:

    > On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:10:14 -0700 (PDT), David Schwartz wrote:


    > > On Apr 11, 3:47 pm, Bit Twister wrote:


    > >> You can take my word that Moe is pretty honest.

    >
    > > I tend not to agree, at least not based on this comment:


    > > "NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums)
    > > dramatically
    > > reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server."


    > Apparently you just want to argue.


    No, I just can't leave prejudice like Moe's unanswered. It was Moe's
    choice to throw that in, not mine. It's off-topic and, IMO,
    inappropriate. He has no evidence, it's his personal prejudice.

    > All Moe was indicating, is the
    > usual subject matter experts who are normally busy people have little
    > time to waste time wading through the google spews. They just add google to
    > the kill file and be done with it.


    Again, what is Moe's evidence that this is true? Has he made
    comparable posts from google and another server and measured a
    difference in response? Or is he just assuming that a large number of
    other people must feel as he does, just because? Or that a small
    number of especially vocal people must mean there's a silent majority?

    I have been posting through google for *years* and have not seen this.
    If all he has is anecdotal evidence, then my anecdotal evidence in the
    other direction is just as good as his. If he has real, scientific
    evidence, let's see it.

    > > I've seen no credible evidence that there's this mass of intelligent
    > > people who killfile posts through google.


    > Just more argument crap. The great majority of people do not post I am
    > killing google posts when they add it to their score file.


    In other words, you have no way to know whether this "great majority"
    exists or not. Try making two comparable posts in this newsgroup, one
    through google one not, and see if there's a difference.

    I have *never* seen any post go unanswered in this newsgroup, except
    where the post was so confused that I don't think any intelligent
    answer was possible.

    > > I've been posting through google and other news servers for many,
    > > many years and have seen google's reach be precisely the same as
    > > everyone else's.


    > There is absolutely no correlation with "many, many years" and why
    > people are filtering out google posts at this time.


    Ahh, so the claim is that this is a new thing? Again, where's the
    evidence?

    > > I'm not as quick to give up on the value of anonymous speech as you are,


    > More argumentative misdirection crap. My reason given was all about
    > Usenet abuse and getting the offender terminated. Nothing was said
    > about "anonymous speech".


    How can you terminate the offender if you don't know who the offender
    is? The ability to get the offender terminated is good but anonymity
    is good too. You can't have 100% of both. So it is not misdirection,
    it is the other side of the coin, the side that you want to ignore.

    > > and if you make the administrative overhead of allowing anonymous
    > > speech too high, it will cease to exist.


    > More argumentative misdirection crap. Nothing was said about "allowing
    > anonymous speech"


    Again, it is the same thing. Allowing anonymous speech makes it harder
    to restrict spam as the spammers can create another anonymous account
    and you can't reliably identify them, meaning you have to act against
    the same spammer many times. Google's allowing anonymous speech is one
    of the reasons they have so much spam.

    > google continues to let the abuse flourish, more people kill file google posts.


    And they will lose out on the value of the anonymous speech. I don't
    doubt that some people will make that tradeoff. What I do doubt is
    that a statistically significant number will. You obviously believe
    the number is much higher than I do. So we get back to the beginning
    -- do you have any evidence?

    > > It's very hard for non-free services to offer anonymous speech
    > > because a lot of people have no anonymous way to pay.


    > Ah, final wrap up of misdirection crap with additional flame bait.
    > It has no bearing on kill filing google posts because of google
    > refusals to kill spewing accounts.


    It does. People who value anonymous speech will know that kill filing
    google will cut them off from a lot of anonymous speech. Even if
    google does kill spewing accounts, if the accounts are anonymous, that
    won't do much -- they account owners will just create new accounts.
    There is a tradeoff between the ability to handle abuse and the
    ability to let people speak anonymously.

    > It was fun playing but I see it is a waste of time.
    >
    > You have a good day.


    You too.

    DS

  20. Re: How to interpret this

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
    article ,
    David Schwartz wrote:

    NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >No, I just can't leave prejudice like Moe's unanswered. It was Moe's
    >choice to throw that in, not mine.


    Actually, that NOTE gets automatically included when-ever I reply to
    a google-poster.

    >It's off-topic and, IMO, inappropriate. He has no evidence, it's his
    >personal prejudice.


    "I have no evidence" - Tell me - how many people responded to this
    thread. How many of them stated that they filter googlegroups.com
    in other news groups? How many stated they do not? Sorry David,
    it's not a personal prejudice - it's a fact of life. You can deny it
    as much as you want, and that makes no difference. Remember also that
    those who filter googlegroups.com globally or filter it in this group
    haven't see your post, although like me, they may see other people
    responding to your posts.

    >Again, what is Moe's evidence that this is true?


    All right - what is YOUR evidence that it is not true?

    >Or that a small number of especially vocal people must mean there's a
    >silent majority?


    "a small majority of especially vocal people who normally answer
    questions. Those of us who do tend not to have time to waste on
    spam. If you have plenty of time to read the spam AND answer technical
    questions, more power to you. Why have I not seen this?

    >I have been posting through google for *years* and have not seen this.


    I guess because it's difficult to see what everyone is doing. You have
    no evidence how many people are reading googleposts and not answering
    them, any more than you have evidence that people are using killfiles
    or score files or similar, and not seeing the posts.

    >If all he has is anecdotal evidence, then my anecdotal evidence in the
    >other direction is just as good as his.


    As above - how many people responded to this thread?

    >I have *never* seen any post go unanswered in this newsgroup, except
    >where the post was so confused that I don't think any intelligent
    >answer was possible.


    My spool only has 6 days on it, and I'm filtering some spam off the
    feed (or did you see someone respond to the googlespam for athletic
    wear), and of the 98 articles in the spool (116 were offered, but 18
    got killed), it see 17 subjects (16 if you ignore the stats file).
    4 of them have no responses.

    >How can you terminate the offender if you don't know who the offender
    >is?


    So you think the spammers are using a different IP address every time
    they post their spam? I guess you don't bother to look at the
    headers.

    >The ability to get the offender terminated is good but anonymity
    >is good too. You can't have 100% of both.


    Yes, and luckily most of the anonymous posting services have obvious
    consistencies in their headers so that people can killfile them. The
    problem with such posting services is they are trivial to abuse, and
    are often used abusively. Or do you feel that there is someone in a
    police state who NEEDS to post to comp.os.linux.* without the
    authorities knowing about it? Your argument is ludicrous. By the
    way, is it true that all ISPs require a picture ID to get an account?
    Yeah, right.

    >Google's allowing anonymous speech is one of the reasons they have
    >so much spam.


    And you feel that everyone must view this spam? You think they don't
    filter it off? Gee, that must reduce the chance of legitimate
    posters using the spammy provider getting seen.

    If google wanted to control the spam coming from their servers, they
    could do so TRIVIALLY. Delay the post until it passes a spam filter.
    If you think that hard, you haven't been using killfiles.

    >And they will lose out on the value of the anonymous speech.


    Oh, that's simply terrible.

    Old guy

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast