On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:50:44 -0800, joel garry wrote:
> Not sure why you say he _can't_ remove a posting, doesn't most posting
> software have such an option?
NNTP server must allow post cancellation. Client software doesn't have much to do with it.
> On 2012-02-13, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 4:13?pm, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
> >> On 2012-02-12, ddf <orat...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> > On Feb 11, 9:27?am, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
> >> >> On 2012-02-10, ddf <orat...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Feb 9, 11:11?pm, vikram <kingkon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <spam snipped>
> >> >> > This is the wrong place to post your SPAM. ?Remove it immediately.
> >> >> Are you really so naive as to believe either that he would want to
> >> >> remove it or that there is actually any way for him to do so?
> >> > No, however it is common policy to post such notifications regardless
> >> > of the integrity of the original poster.
> >> > I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.
> >> I have, but I consider it to be moderately pointless.
> >> Asking for removal is definitely pointless since it is, as I said,
> >> impossible.
> > Not pointless, it is for the other millions of spammers who might not
> > realize they are spammers and look before posting.
> Naive.
Quixotic, not naive. Only the magnitude of effect is arguable, if you
think it is entirely null, the naivete is obvious.
> > Not sure why you say he _can't_ remove a posting, doesn't most posting
> > software have such an option?
> This is Usenet, the only way to remove a posting is to send a
> cancellation, and
> 1) there is no absolute guarantee that a cancellation will reach all the
> servers the message did
> 2) many servers ignore cancellations since they are quite easy to forge
> 3) some of the servers that ignore cancellations keep publicly
> accessible archives.
That's true, but you are being entirely too mechanistic. You are
incorrectly assuming that because some cancels are ignored, all will
be and everyone will always be using servers that ignore. That's like
saying "don't use antibiotics because it will cause resistance." True
about the resistance, but do you really want to be a blind syphilitic?
What you seem to be missing is that as an unmoderated forum, we have
to work in tandem to netcop. Different people have different ideas on
how to do that, and since there are different spamming attacks -
spammers are not a homogenous group, the merely clueless might watch
and learn from responses - there needs be different defense
mechanisms. Amazingly enough, despite so many "death of usenet"
assertions that it is a very old joke about "news at 11," this group
is still here and useful. Many of us have been here since before the
beginning (which isn't a non sequitur, it used to be cdo before
cdos). Some of us have seen that chest-pounding and clear assertions
do work against spammers - logic is not the primary factor, behavior
is.
> On Feb 13, 1:54?pm, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-13, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> > Not pointless, it is for the other millions of spammers who might not
>> > realize they are spammers and look before posting.
>> Naive.
> Quixotic, not naive. Only the magnitude of effect is arguable, if you
> think it is entirely null, the naivete is obvious.
>> > Not sure why you say he _can't_ remove a posting, doesn't most posting
>> > software have such an option?
>> This is Usenet, the only way to remove a posting is to send a
>> cancellation, and
>> 1) there is no absolute guarantee that a cancellation will reach all the
>> ? ?servers the message did
>> 2) many servers ignore cancellations since they are quite easy to forge
>> 3) some of the servers that ignore cancellations keep publicly
>> ? ?accessible archives.
> That's true, but you are being entirely too mechanistic. You are
> incorrectly assuming that because some cancels are ignored, all will
> be and everyone will always be using servers that ignore.
Some cancels are ignored (more than you think, I suspect). If the
message is anywhere, someone may respond without snipping the Spam bit,
then it is everywhere again.
> That's like saying "don't use antibiotics because it will cause
> resistance." True about the resistance, but do you really want to be
> a blind syphilitic?
Anyone saying something like that is (I hope) actually meaning "don't
take them all the time for every little thing even when they are known
not to work". So not a valid analogy really.
> What you seem to be missing is that as an unmoderated forum, we have
> to work in tandem to netcop. Different people have different ideas on
> how to do that, and since there are different spamming attacks -
> spammers are not a homogenous group, the merely clueless might watch
> and learn from responses - there needs be different defense
> mechanisms. Amazingly enough, despite so many "death of usenet"
> assertions that it is a very old joke about "news at 11," this group
> is still here and useful. Many of us have been here since before the
> beginning (which isn't a non sequitur, it used to be cdo before
> cdos). Some of us have seen that chest-pounding and clear assertions
> do work against spammers - logic is not the primary factor, behavior
> is.
I have no problem with different views on how to treat spammers, but of
course I may choose to comment.
From what you said plus the fact that you are posting through Google, I
was inclined to believe that you had no idea how Usenet worked, and I
answered on that basis. On the other hand I too have been here for a
long time, so I strongly suspected otherwise. Indirect education of
others again, perhaps? :)
By the way, I never saw the original spam post, only your answer to it!
No, I don't think it was cancelled, but I do have some filters.
> On 2012-02-13, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 1:54?pm, Eric <e...@deptj.eu> wrote:
> >> On 2012-02-13, joel garry <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> > Not pointless, it is for the other millions of spammers who might not
> >> > realize they are spammers and look before posting.
> >> Naive.
> > Quixotic, not naive. Only the magnitude of effect is arguable, if you
> > think it is entirely null, the naivete is obvious.
> >> > Not sure why you say he _can't_ remove a posting, doesn't most posting
> >> > software have such an option?
> >> This is Usenet, the only way to remove a posting is to send a
> >> cancellation, and
> >> 1) there is no absolute guarantee that a cancellation will reach all the
> >> ? ?servers the message did
> >> 2) many servers ignore cancellations since they are quite easy to forge
> >> 3) some of the servers that ignore cancellations keep publicly
> >> ? ?accessible archives.
> > That's true, but you are being entirely too mechanistic. You are
> > incorrectly assuming that because some cancels are ignored, all will
> > be and everyone will always be using servers that ignore.
> Some cancels are ignored (more than you think, I suspect). If the
> message is anywhere, someone may respond without snipping the Spam bit,
> then it is everywhere again.
I don't think so many are ignored. When it comes down to it, who
wants to see cancels? Those who do, know how. Most would rather not,
even if they find watching goofs entertaining.
> > That's like saying "don't use antibiotics because it will cause
> > resistance." True about the resistance, but do you really want to be
> > a blind syphilitic?
> Anyone saying something like that is (I hope) actually meaning "don't
> take them all the time for every little thing even when they are known
> not to work". So not a valid analogy really.
Granted, crappy analogy, especially since I really wanted to emphasize
the prophylactic usage, which is generally not used in that case. I
know I've been given antibiotics before surgery to prevent
opportunistic infections. "Opportunistic infections" of newsgroup
spammers is one of things we are trying to prevent, specifically the
monkey-see, monkey-do variety.
> > What you seem to be missing is that as an unmoderated forum, we have
> > to work in tandem to netcop. Different people have different ideas on
> > how to do that, and since there are different spamming attacks -
> > spammers are not a homogenous group, the merely clueless might watch
> > and learn from responses - there needs be different defense
> > mechanisms. Amazingly enough, despite so many "death of usenet"
> > assertions that it is a very old joke about "news at 11," this group
> > is still here and useful. Many of us have been here since before the
> > beginning (which isn't a non sequitur, it used to be cdo before
> > cdos). Some of us have seen that chest-pounding and clear assertions
> > do work against spammers - logic is not the primary factor, behavior
> > is.
> I have no problem with different views on how to treat spammers, but of
> course I may choose to comment.
Hey, that's what we're all about.
> From what you said plus the fact that you are posting through Google, I
> was inclined to believe that you had no idea how Usenet worked, and I
> answered on that basis. On the other hand I too have been here for a
> long time, so I strongly suspected otherwise. Indirect education of
> others again, perhaps? :)
If you've been here a long time, how could you possibly not know who I
am? Even if you didn't, if you'd bother to look, you'd find a lot.
Of course, if you are wading through cancels, you'd see all those
idiotic forgeries, and would likely get a skewed view. Spamming not
new to me: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle/browse_thread/th...
Actually, I've been online in various fora since acoustic modems were
all the rage. In the early '90's, my buddy paid for an extra phone
line in my house so his bbs and usenet users near me could get local
access.
> By the way, I never saw the original spam post, only your answer to it!
> No, I don't think it was cancelled, but I do have some filters.
Yeah, google doesn't filter and present as someone used to trn or
whatever would like, but the ability to portal from anywhere
regardless of local admin idiosyncracies is priceless. It became a
habit when I was indie and never knew what kind of immediate access I
would get at any site. Much as I badmouth the cloud, I've found it
useful for a very long time.
