Usernet spam - Slackware

This is a discussion on Usernet spam - Slackware ; frz wrote: > "Mike Easter" >> frz wrote: >>> Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these >>> spams being posted daily? >> >> You have several problems. First, you are a googlegrouper GG. > Wow, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63

Thread: Usernet spam

  1. Re: Usernet spam

    frz wrote:
    > "Mike Easter"
    >> frz wrote:


    >>> Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these
    >>> spams being posted daily?

    >>
    >> You have several problems. First, you are a googlegrouper GG.


    > Wow, you guys have gotten tough on the replies. So I guess no one sees
    > the spams posted here but, me.


    Almost everyone here is using a newsagent and a newsserver and this is
    an unmoderated group. The business of what each nntp reader sees is a
    function of how they have their newsreader filters configured and
    whether the newsserver they access has any kind of 'cleanfeed' which
    helps remove/prevent spam. Cleanfeed is described in various places
    including individual or NIN at http://news.individual.net/faq.php 1.5
    and 1.12 describes their cleanfeed antispam and antihipcrime functions.

    > Anywho, I have heard about moderated
    > newsgroups


    There are faqs on moderated newsgroups, such as the one which is posted
    to news.newusers.questions n.n.q. regularly^1. I would also encourage
    you to visit the nnq links page at
    http://members.fortunecity.com/nnqweb/nnqlinks.html

    ^1
    http://groups.google.com/group/news....660482a?hl=en&
    or http://snipr.com/1otnn Archive-name: usenet/moderated-ng-faq

    > I have not master
    > the linux os to use it instead of windows.


    These days there are some very friendly distros which come on Live CDs
    making for an easy opportunity to experiment.

    > The using of google groups though is because 1). I am usually
    > at work when I am on the computer, using XP and that is most only way
    > to get here


    The rather controversial topic of being at work and using your
    employer's computer and connectivity to access newsgroups if that is
    against the policies of the employer gets discussed in a lot of places,
    especially the group news.software.readers In that group we discuss
    whether or not it is ever necessary to use googlegroups GG. There are
    many ways to use a newsreader and access a newsserver when there is some
    kind of firewall interfering with port 119 connectivity. Whether or not
    you should be doing it or how you should be doing it is another matter.

    > and 2) I am yet to finish setting up my wireless card to
    > get online on my laptop and I don't have internet at home.


    So, let me try to get clear on what are the problems with your
    connectivity. What is authorized and what is not authorized to do at
    work? Is it OK to access newsgroups or isn't it? If it isn't, why is
    accessing ng/s with GG OK?

    I'm not getting a clear view of the playing field here yet.

    --
    Mike Easter


  2. Re: Usernet spam

    frz wrote:
    > Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these
    > spams being posted daily?


    Firstly, it's Usenet, not Usernet.
    It is not moderated, although I don't think the problem is spam here
    but that 90% of the bandwidth is wasted by two regular trolls/flamers.

    Ottavio
    http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista


  3. Re: Usernet spam

    Res wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    > NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
    >
    > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > frz wrote:
    > >> Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these
    > >> spams being posted daily?
    > >>

    > >
    > > Usenet started back in the early 80s. The concept of spam did not exist
    > > back then, thus no moderation was necessary.
    > >

    >
    > I use this group via a mailing list


    I'm curious, how do you do that?
    >

    Ottavio
    http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista




    >
    >



  4. Re: Usernet spam

    Mike Easter wrote:
    > frz wrote:
    > User-Agent: G2/1.0
    > X-HTTP-UserAgent: MSIE 6.0
    >
    > > Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these
    > > spams being posted daily?

    >
    > You have several problems. First, you are a googlegrouper GG. (and othet pointless blah blah..)


    So, you enjoy blasting noobies but what are you doing on a Linux NG?
    What about your Microsoft Outlook Express headers?
    Dan C, you missed this one, didn't you?

    Usually pointless lamers who can't give a proper technical answer
    babble their way to rubbish, just like you.

    I might be stealing time and bandwidth from my employer, what's your
    problem?

    Now challenge that, with GG it's easier to track a spammer. GG adds
    all the proper headers (NNTP posting host, real email address), you
    can track me anytime. What about you? Who are you?

    Ottavio
    http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottvista


  5. Re: Usernet spam

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:15:44 +0000, frz whined:

    > either. I just have been awol for a while and yes, I have not master
    > the linux os to use it instead of windows. I am working on that bare
    > with me. The using of google groups though is because 1). I am usually
    > at work when I am on the computer, using XP and that is most only way
    > to get here and 2) I am yet to finish setting up my wireless card to
    > get online on my laptop and I don't have internet at home.


    Sounds like you're just a general all-around loser, in many different
    ways. Bugger off and update your viruses.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  6. Re: Usernet spam

    On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:33:16 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

    > -3- apparently you have some interest in linux, but you haven't even
    > gone so far as to be able to surf to GG with a linux browser instead of
    > a win browser.


    Ummmm......

    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437


    ..... And you're using this? Nice.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


  7. Re: Usernet spam

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:58:54 -0700, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

    > Res wrote:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
    >>
    >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> > frz wrote:
    >> >> Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these
    >> >> spams being posted daily?
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> > Usenet started back in the early 80s. The concept of spam did not
    >> > exist back then, thus no moderation was necessary.
    >> >
    >> >

    >> I use this group via a mailing list

    >
    > I'm curious, how do you do that?


    just check the extended headers of his post and
    you'll know, as well as the difference between thinking you
    were curious and to be curious ;-)

  8. Re: Usernet spam

    On Jul 27, 8:24 am, Dan C wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:15:44 +0000, frz whined:
    >
    > > either. I just have been awol for a while and yes, I have not master
    > > the linux os to use it instead of windows. I am working on that bare
    > > with me. The using of google groups though is because 1). I am usually
    > > at work when I am on the computer, using XP and that is most only way
    > > to get here and 2) I am yet to finish setting up my wireless card to
    > > get online on my laptop and I don't have internet at home.

    >
    > Sounds like you're just a general all-around loser, in many different
    > ways. Bugger off and update your viruses.
    >
    > --
    > "Bother!" said Pooh, as Christopher Robin pleaded to be spanked again.


    Hey, I am not here to get into all this argument and talk. I was just
    wondering about the spams that I see pushing away the questions
    associate with the group, that's all. I am just here for the advise
    and tips about the Slackware distribution. Kudos.


  9. Re: Usernet spam

    Ottavio Caruso wrote:
    > Mike Easter wrote:
    >> frz wrote:


    >>> Isn't there a moderator for these newsgroup to remove all of these
    >>> spams being posted daily?

    >>
    >> You have several problems. First, you are a googlegrouper GG.


    > So, you enjoy blasting noobies but what are you doing on a Linux NG?


    -a- frz wasn't exactly a newbie and -b- the GG condition related
    directly to hir unfiltered ng issue

    > What about your Microsoft Outlook Express headers?


    I use an old MS OE 6 on my Win98se installs and Tbird 1.5.0.12 or
    sometimes Opera9 M2 or on my linux distro installs.

    > Usually pointless lamers who can't give a proper technical answer
    > babble their way to rubbish, just like you.


    I told the GGer that GG couldn't filter and recommended to nntp instead
    of http ngs and encouraged trying a linux distro. I must've missed the
    part where you offered anything helpful.

    > I might be stealing time and bandwidth from my employer, what's your
    > problem?


    I believe that there should be an honest relationship between employee
    and employer and that both have rights and responsibities.

    > Now challenge that, with GG it's easier to track a spammer. GG adds
    > all the proper headers (NNTP posting host, real email address),


    GG lends itself to anonymizing. There's no limit to the number of From
    real email addresses a GGer can use, and the NPH can be the IP of a
    proxy or tor node.



    --
    Mike Easter


  10. Re: Usernet spam

    On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:58:40 +0000, frz wrote:

    > Hey, I am not here to get into all this argument and talk. I was just
    > wondering about the spams that I see pushing away the questions
    > associate with the group, that's all. I am just here for the advise
    > and tips about the Slackware distribution. Kudos.


    No, you're not. You don't use Slackware, never have, never will. You're
    just the latest Win-droid troll to pass through here.

    Bugger off and leave, doofus. There's nothing here for you drooling
    morons.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as his condom ripped.



  11. Re: Usenet spam

    Guy Macon wrote:
    >
    >
    > ~kurt wrote:
    >
    >>So, I'll turn my statement into an opinion - moderated alt.* newsgroups
    >>are stupid.

    >
    > What is stupid about alt.humor.best-of-usenet, alt.answers, and
    > alt.atheism.moderated?


    I don't like censorship, and quite often moderators act as censors instead
    of stopping spam, trolls, flame wars, and off topic posts (which usually
    include spam, trolls, and flame wars).

    - Kurt

  12. Re: Usenet spam

    ~kurt says:
    >Guy Macon wrote:
    >> ~kurt wrote:


    >>>So, I'll turn my statement into an opinion - moderated alt.*
    >>>newsgroups are stupid.


    >> What is stupid about alt.humor.best-of-usenet, alt.answers, and
    >> alt.atheism.moderated?


    >I don't like censorship, and quite often moderators act as censors
    >instead of stopping spam, trolls, flame wars, and off topic posts
    >(which usually include spam, trolls, and flame wars).


    Unfortunately, posters who have opinions in the minority, (and we
    won't mention any names) are quite regularly attacked and called
    spammers and trolls and find themselves involved in flamewars simply
    because they have minority opinions and are able to defend those
    opinions with an eloquence wholly lacking from the kind of trash who
    would volunteer to moderate a newsgroup.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  13. Re: Usernet spam

    Dan C wrote:

    > Sounds like you're just a general all-around loser, in many different
    > ways. Bugger off and update your viruses.


    Which is it you illiterate asshat? All around, or many different ways?


    >
    >



  14. Re: Usenet spam




    ~kurt wrote:
    >
    >Guy Macon wrote:
    >>
    >> ~kurt wrote:
    >>
    >>>So, I'll turn my statement into an opinion - moderated alt.* newsgroups
    >>>are stupid.

    >>
    >> What is stupid about alt.humor.best-of-usenet, alt.answers, and
    >> alt.atheism.moderated?

    >
    >I don't like censorship, and quite often moderators act as censors instead
    >of stopping spam, trolls, flame wars, and off topic posts (which usually
    >include spam, trolls, and flame wars).


    That would have been a great answer if you had written "moderated
    newsgroups are stupid." Instead, you specified moderated alt.*
    newsgroups, after initially claiming that no alt.* newsgroups are
    moderated.

    I am still at a loss as to why you think that moderated *ALT*
    newsgroups are particularly stupid.


    --
    Guy Macon



  15. Re: Usenet spam

    Guy Macon wrote:

    > I am still at a loss as to why you think that moderated ALT
    > newsgroups are particularly stupid.


    I suspect that as with the majority of those who are subscribed to them
    ~kurt feels that the raison d'ete of the groups in the alt. hierarchy
    is that they aren't, with some exceptions, moderated. Further I suspect
    that he shares with many others the opinion that the groups in the alt.
    hierarchy, should not be moderated.

    I share his opinion that there is little point in a newsgroup being in
    the alt. hierarchy if it is moderated.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  16. Re: Usenet spam




    Two Ravens wrote:
    >
    >Guy Macon wrote:
    >
    >> I am still at a loss as to why you think that moderated ALT
    >> newsgroups are particularly stupid.

    >
    >I suspect that as with the majority of those who are subscribed to them
    >~kurt feels that the raison d'ete of the groups in the alt. hierarchy
    >is that they aren't, with some exceptions, moderated. Further I suspect
    >that he shares with many others the opinion that the groups in the alt.
    >hierarchy, should not be moderated.
    >
    >I share his opinion that there is little point in a newsgroup being in
    >the alt. hierarchy if it is moderated.


    That's an interesting point of view.

    Just as a refresher for anyone who is reading this, newsroups
    that start with "alt." can be created by anyone who chooses to
    do so. with "sci." or "rec." there is a procedure that insures
    that there is some level of interest. Others, such as "microsoft."
    are run under a wide variety of different rules. Because they
    are so easy to create, there are a lot of alt. newsgroups, many
    of which get little use. Going back to Two Ravens' comments...

    The Standard Answer to any comments that anything is wrong with
    an alt. newsgroup has always been "you don't like it? Create your
    own newsgroup with whatever it is you don't like changed." For
    example, if someone doesn't like alt.os.linux.slackware because
    the posts contain the letter "e", they are free to create a new
    group called "alt.os.linux.slackware.no-e" and see whether anyone
    wishes to use it and if so whether they will follow the rule about
    the letter e. Or they could make "alt.os.linux.slackware.no-e" a
    moderated group and reject any post that contains the letter "e."
    I predict that there won't be very many folks who wish to talk
    about slackwar#, but you never know.

    As for whether there is little point in a newsgroup being in
    the alt. hierarchy if it is moderated, in most cases there
    is little point in a newsgroup being in the alt. hierarchy
    peroid. that's why the alt. hierarchy was created; so that
    anyone can create anything and try to attract users. As for
    the stronger claim that no groups in the alt. hierarchy
    should be moderated, in my opinion the Standard Answer above
    applies, and there should be *no* restrictions on alt. groups.
    Just my opinion, of course. The reality is that there is no
    mechanism for imposing any restrictions and thus the point
    is moot. Or, as half the Internet seems to call it, "mute."

    --
    Guy Macon





  17. Re: Usenet spam

    Guy Macon wrote:

    > The Standard Answer to any comments that anything is wrong with
    > an alt. newsgroup has always been "you don't like it? Create your
    > own newsgroup with whatever it is you don't like changed." *For
    > example, if someone doesn't like alt.os.linux.slackware because
    > the posts contain the letter "e", they are free to create a new
    > group called "alt.os.linux.slackware.no-e" and see whether anyone
    > wishes to use it and if so whether they will follow the rule about
    > the letter e. *Or they could make "alt.os.linux.slackware.no-e" a
    > moderated group and reject any post that contains the letter "e."
    > I predict that there won't be very many folks who wish to talk
    > about slackwar#, but you never know.


    Strangely enough there was, and still is an alt. newsgroup entitled
    alt.linux.slakware, which at one time had a stream of posts, the volume
    of that stream being less than those posting here but nevertheless a
    stream of posts. Some even cross-posted to both. Those who didn't like
    the prevailing ethos of this group used at one time to migrate, however
    it seems to be down to nil posts that my news-reader hasn't expired. I
    may in future cross post to both to keep it alive.
    --
    Two Ravens
    "...hit the squirrel..."

  18. Re: Usenet spam

    Some Phat Phuck says:

    >I am still at a loss as to why you think that moderated *ALT*
    >newsgroups are particularly stupid.


    Perhaps he heard that you moderated some alt newsgroups? That would
    pretty much do it, don't you think?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  19. Re: Usenet spam

    On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:06:36 +0100, Two Ravens wrote:

    > Guy Macon wrote:
    >
    >> The Standard Answer to any comments that anything is wrong with an alt.
    >> newsgroup has always been "you don't like it? Create your own newsgroup
    >> with whatever it is you don't like changed." *For example, if someone
    >> doesn't like alt.os.linux.slackware because the posts contain the
    >> letter "e", they are free to create a new group called
    >> "alt.os.linux.slackware.no-e" and see whether anyone wishes to use it
    >> and if so whether they will follow the rule about the letter e. *Or
    >> they could make "alt.os.linux.slackware.no-e" a moderated group and
    >> reject any post that contains the letter "e." I predict that there
    >> won't be very many folks who wish to talk about slackwar#, but you
    >> never know.

    >
    > Strangely enough there was, and still is an alt. newsgroup entitled
    > alt.linux.slakware, which at one time had a stream of posts, the volume
    > of that stream being less than those posting here but nevertheless a
    > stream of posts. Some even cross-posted to both. Those who didn't like
    > the prevailing ethos of this group used at one time to migrate, however
    > it seems to be down to nil posts that my news-reader hasn't expired.


    Possible, the last post besides a 'commercial' was 08 Apr 2007 11:49:48 MEST
    and it was more an awk/perl post than a slackware specific one, and
    also it already were a crosspost with comp.os.linux.misc :-)

    > I
    > may in future cross post to both to keep it alive.


    Mmm, why not )

  20. Re: Usenet spam

    Guy Macon wrote:
    >
    > That would have been a great answer if you had written "moderated
    > newsgroups are stupid." Instead, you specified moderated alt.*


    I stated an opinion in the second post - moderated alt.* newsgroups
    are stupid - it is a fine answer.

    > newsgroups, after initially claiming that no alt.* newsgroups are
    > moderated.


    Yes, and I was corrected on that. My belief here was based on documentation
    I had read a decade ago, which was apparently wrong, and on discussions
    that have come up on various newsgroups in the past (not sure if it had
    come up here before) when someone who was accustomed to web forums asked
    if a group could become moderated.

    > I am still at a loss as to why you think that moderated *ALT*
    > newsgroups are particularly stupid.


    I understand your point in that making a restriction that would keep
    an alt.* newsgroup from becoming moderated doesn't quite fit in with
    the spirit of the alt.* hierarchy (that there are as few rules as
    possible, even if that lack of rules allows for excessive rules
    applying to he newsgroup). That being said, alt.* is no place for
    a moderated newsgroup. Just because one can create a moderated
    alt.* newsgroup, it doesn't mean they should. I always liked the
    assumption that alt.* was not moderated - that is the way it should
    be.

    - Kurt

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast