Question on reports
Richard
Define precisely what the purpose of them is?
Define how one gets on the list?
Perhaps even why it's even being done?
From looking at a few I have come to the conclusion, somebody is keeping
track of every poster in the world for some sick purpose.
On one of them, I even found myself listed !!!
Does your government's postal service go to this much trouble to track and
report every mailing?
It seems to me that abuse on the usenet would be those who spam the groups
religously and continously.
Not individuals who enjoy using the usenet for it's intended purpose.
To me, these reports are abusing the system in themselves.
They serve no worthwhile purpose.
Who cares who posts how many times?
Who cares how much data was sent?
Does this damn robot thing know the difference in content of a post?
Then we wonder why we get spam in our e-mail.
If we list our actual e-mail, and we get on the list, we get spammed.
So perhaps these reports are for that purpose?
So spammers of junk mail can have a place to acquire the addresses safely
and quickly?
Having seen these so called abuse reports can only lead to this assumption.
What other purpose do they serve?
Gary Woods
>Could someone please explain the purpose of these so called abuse reports?
>Define precisely what the purpose of them is?
Which abuse reports are you talking about?
The only ones I am familiar with are the ones I send in response to spam I receive. I'm polite, but
I do complain to the system that sent them, and ask whether this is their policy, so I will know how
to filter my email in the future.
I find that as spammers find out there's no profit in it, the volume drops. I get only a trickle
now, despite the fact that I do not mung my address in public postings. I actually get more junk
email to an address never seen in public, which was submitted to one and only one "remove" list.
(That should be a clue.....)
--
Gary Woods O- K2AHC Public key at www.albany.net/~gwoods, or get 0x1D64A93D via keyserver
gwo...@albany.net gwo...@wrgb.com
fingerprint = E2 6F 50 93 7B C7 F3 CA 1F 8B 3C C0 B0 28 68 0B
Unknown News Administrator
>Could someone please explain the purpose of these so called abuse reports?
There are a lot of different ones around. You might want to post a piece
of one of the ones you are concerned about.
>Define precisely what the purpose of them is?
>Define how one gets on the list?
>Perhaps even why it's even being done?
Dunno until you answer the first question.
>From looking at a few I have come to the conclusion, somebody is keeping
>track of every poster in the world for some sick purpose.
>On one of them, I even found myself listed !!!
Hmmm... Suddenly a motive appears.
>Does your government's postal service go to this much trouble to track and
>report every mailing?
No. (It was tempting to say that postal services don't have to go to
that much trouble, but you might take me seriously.)
>It seems to me that abuse on the usenet would be those who spam the groups
>religously and continously.
Them, too.
>Not individuals who enjoy using the usenet for it's intended purpose.
For 1000 points, explain what Usenet's intended purpose is.
>To me, these reports are abusing the system in themselves.
>They serve no worthwhile purpose.
Oh, I don't know. I use some of them for a worthwhile purpose.
>Who cares who posts how many times?
>Who cares how much data was sent?
Anyone who owns and runs a news server. You ought to try it sometime.
>Does this damn robot thing know the difference in content of a post?
Some robots do, some don't.
>Then we wonder why we get spam in our e-mail.
>If we list our actual e-mail, and we get on the list, we get spammed.
>So perhaps these reports are for that purpose?
>So spammers of junk mail can have a place to acquire the addresses safely
>and quickly?
>Having seen these so called abuse reports can only lead to this assumption.
>What other purpose do they serve?
I think you are very confused. If someone posts 200 identical articles
with his or her real email address, and the From address from these
articles is listed in a report, why do you think that the junk emailers
get the address from the report and not one of the 200 spam articles?
--
J. Porter Clark, d/b/a
+--+
|oo| The Unknown News Administrator
| | ne...@news.msfc.nasa.gov
`^^'
Robert F. Golaszewski
news:7dtru0
> >Then we wonder why we get spam in our e-mail.
> >If we list our actual e-mail, and we get on the list, we get spammed.
> >So perhaps these reports are for that purpose?
> >So spammers of junk mail can have a place to acquire the addresses safely
> >and quickly?
> >Having seen these so called abuse reports can only lead to this
assumption.
> >What other purpose do they serve?
>
> I think you are very confused. If someone posts 200 identical articles
> with his or her real email address, and the From address from these
> articles is listed in a report, why do you think that the junk emailers
> get the address from the report and not one of the 200 spam articles?
More to the point, I would think the *last* place a junk emailer
would want to harvest addresses from is from a report of Usenet spammers.
If only the spammers would do this; I like the idea of spammers spam each
other to death.
--
-Robert F. Golaszewski
("A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle"- Vique's Law)
Visit http://third-plateau.lycaeum.org for the best general interest site on
the Net
about DXM (dextromethorphan) used recreationally.
Henrietta Thomas
"Richard" <Richa...@msn.com> wrote:
>Could someone please explain the purpose of these so called abuse reports?
Yep.
>Define precisely what the purpose of them is?
To identify prolific posters, who may or may not be spamming Usenet.
>Define how one gets on the list?
You have to have a Cumulative Breidbart Index of 20 or more
within a 4-hour period to get on the list. It's kind of an exclusive
club.
>Perhaps even why it's even being done?
As stated above, to identify prolific posters, who may or may not be
spamming Usenet.
>From looking at a few I have come to the conclusion, somebody is keeping
>track of every poster in the world for some sick purpose.
Yes, somebody is keeping track of (almost) every poster in the world,
but it's not necessarily for some sick purpose.
>On one of them, I even found myself listed !!!
You must have had a CBI>=20 then.
>Does your government's postal service go to this much trouble to track and
>report every mailing?
Well, they *do* count the mail as they sort it, but I don't think they keep
tabs on how much mail is sent to each address.
>It seems to me that abuse on the usenet would be those who spam the groups
>religously and continously.
A major purpose of the list is to identify spammers, who just happen
to be the most prolific posters in Usenet.
>Not individuals who enjoy using the usenet for it's intended purpose.
Well, some ordinary individuals get on the list by accident when they
post too much within a 4-hour period.
>To me, these reports are abusing the system in themselves.
To some extent they are; they take up an awful lot of bandwidth.
>They serve no worthwhile purpose.
To the contrary, they are *very* useful to the spam cancellers
in tracking particular spammers and identifying new ones as
they crop up.
>Who cares who posts how many times?
We do.
>Who cares how much data was sent?
We do.
>Does this damn robot thing know the difference in content of a post?
No. All it does is count the posts for each user-ID, add up the bytes
used, and calculate the Cumulative Breidbart Index (CBI). [1]
>Then we wonder why we get spam in our e-mail.
>If we list our actual e-mail, and we get on the list, we get spammed.
>So perhaps these reports are for that purpose?
>So spammers of junk mail can have a place to acquire the addresses safely
>and quickly?
I agree that a spammer could pick off the addresses from the list,
but that is not the purpose of the list. If the author of the report
wanted to help spammers get addresses, he would just collect
them and sell them, not post them in public for free.
>Having seen these so called abuse reports can only lead to this assumption.
>What other purpose do they serve?
As stated above, they help the spam cancellers track and identify
spammers. They also give the rest of us a fairly good idea of how
much bandwidth is being used by prolific posters.
I note that you are posting from msn.com. I hope you're not a spammer
yourself.
Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
--
[1] Here is my own explanation of how the reports are done:
>All articles sharing the same From: header are counted together and
>summarized by number of posts, bytes posted, and Cumulative Breidbart
>Index (CBI). Only article sets with a CBI=>20 are listed in the report.
>Readers should take care not to assume that a CBI=>20 is the same
>as a BI=>20. The terms CBI and BI have two very different meanings.
>The Breidbart Index (BI) is a measure of the breadth of any article
>posted to Usenet, whether or not the article is cancellable as "spam."
>It is, simply stated, the square root of the number of newsgroups to
>which an article is posted or crossposted.
>The Cumulative Breidbart Index (CBI) is nothing more than the sum
>of the Breidbart Indexes for all articles attributed to a single From:
>line. A rough formula would be: BI1 + BI2 + BI3 = CBI. This has
>absolutely nothing to do with the content of the articles. The fact
>that it is based on the Breidbart Index does not mean the articles
>are "spam."
>Once the calculations are complete, the data is presented in
>descending order so that interested parties can see at a glance
>how network resources are being utilized and consider what
>action, if any, should be taken in regard to what might be called
>"conspicuous consumption." The author of the report makes
>no particular recommendations in this regard.
Richard
But the may or may not be spam part scares me.
Over 95 percent of all my post are in one group.
24hoursupport.helpdesk
Since I'm not employed and don't watch tv much, I'm online a lot.
I post replies to questions from various users and help them fix the
situation they got into if I can.
This is definitely not spam by any means of the word.
Since this group very rarely receives spam as most groups do, perhaps it
should be removed from the software all together.
To the best of any one's knowledge, there is no known charter for this
group.
It apparently was started by a company for their purpose.
Which has either gone out of business or abandoned the group.
If you bother to check the official list at isc.org on the ftp system, you
won't find it listed.
But for those of you who responded, I'll go back through the threads and
find a sample of one report to post so you'll know what I'm talking about.
WHo knows? Maybe your on the list too.
Thanks to all
Henrietta Thomas wrote in message
<37029bd1...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>...
Henrietta Thomas
"Richard" <Richa...@msn.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the honesty.
You're welcome.
>But the may or may not be spam part scares me.
If you are not spamming, there should be no problem.
>Over 95 percent of all my post are in one group.
>24hoursupport.helpdesk
>Since I'm not employed and don't watch tv much, I'm online a lot.
>I post replies to questions from various users and help them fix the
>situation they got into if I can.
>This is definitely not spam by any means of the word.
Nobody said it was. The posting summaries aren't "spam" lists;
they're lists of frequent posters. The more you post, the more
likely you are to end up on the list. The solution is to reduce
your postings, and there are several ways of doing this.
1. Write a FAQ for the most frequently asked questions, and
post it once a week for readers of your group to download and
print.
2. Use email more often to answer questions instead of posting
to the group.
3. Keep your CBI below 20 in any 4-hour period.
>Since this group very rarely receives spam as most groups do, perhaps it
>should be removed from the software all together.
The software program counts *all* articles; there are no exceptions.
It will count this article I am writing now, and every other article I
post, and if the CBI is 20 or more within a 4-hour period, my email
address will go on the list, even though I am posting to the group
where the reports are posted and the author of the reports knows
me very well.
>To the best of any one's knowledge, there is no known charter for this
>group.
>It apparently was started by a company for their purpose.
>Which has either gone out of business or abandoned the group.
>If you bother to check the official list at isc.org on the ftp system, you
>won't find it listed.
Please email me one of your articles, with full headers. I'd like to
check this out.
>But for those of you who responded, I'll go back through the threads and
>find a sample of one report to post so you'll know what I'm talking about.
>WHo knows? Maybe your on the list too.
You needn't have bothered. The people in this thread who said they
didn't know what you were talking about knew very well what you were
talking about. They were just joking around to see how you would react.
Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
Jeremy
> Nobody said it was. The posting summaries aren't "spam" lists;
> they're lists of frequent posters. The more you post, the more
> likely you are to end up on the list. The solution is to reduce
> your postings, and there are several ways of doing this.
>
> 1. Write a FAQ for the most frequently asked questions, and
> post it once a week for readers of your group to download and
> print.
>
> 2. Use email more often to answer questions instead of posting
> to the group.
>
> 3. Keep your CBI below 20 in any 4-hour period.
Of course, there is no reason to have to do any of these things, as there
is absolutely nothing wrong with appearing on the list. If the original
poster had actually read the posts containing the lists, he would have
known this.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"I think I speak for everyone here when I say, 'Huh?'" --Buffy
Sherilyn
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:16:07 -0500, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
> "Richard" <Richa...@msn.com> wrote:
...
>
> >Over 95 percent of all my post are in one group.
> >24hoursupport.helpdesk
> >Since I'm not employed and don't watch tv much, I'm online a lot.
> >I post replies to questions from various users and help them fix the
> >situation they got into if I can.
> >This is definitely not spam by any means of the word.
>
> they're lists of frequent posters. The more you post, the more
> likely you are to end up on the list. The solution is to reduce
> your postings, and there are several ways of doing this.
>
> 1. Write a FAQ for the most frequently asked questions, and
> post it once a week for readers of your group to download and
> print.
>
> 2. Use email more often to answer questions instead of posting
> to the group.
>
> 3. Keep your CBI below 20 in any 4-hour period.
>
sometimes, and I emailed the author the first time I noticed my name in it,
because like Richard, I felt uneasy about it. But soon I got used to it.
Sherilyn
/server irc.powerchat.net
/join #catch-22
No ops, no kicks, no bans. Just talk.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Henrietta Thomas
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> Nobody said it was. The posting summaries aren't "spam" lists;
>> they're lists of frequent posters. The more you post, the more
>> likely you are to end up on the list. The solution is to reduce
>> your postings, and there are several ways of doing this.
>>
>> 1. Write a FAQ for the most frequently asked questions, and
>> post it once a week for readers of your group to download and
>> print.
>>
>> 2. Use email more often to answer questions instead of posting
>> to the group.
>>
>> 3. Keep your CBI below 20 in any 4-hour period.
>
>Of course, there is no reason to have to do any of these things, as there
>is absolutely nothing wrong with appearing on the list. If the original
>poster had actually read the posts containing the lists, he would have
>known this.
This is for Sherilyn, too, who says to ignore the report.
I know, but some people really *don't* want to show up on the
list. So I think it helps to show them ways that they can avoid
that.
If it bothers you to hear me say things like this, let me know, and
I'll write an email to send to people who come in here with these
questions about the "spam" list.
Henrietta
Sherilyn
...
>This is for Sherilyn, too, who says to ignore the report.
>
>I know, but some people really *don't* want to show up on the
>list. So I think it helps to show them ways that they can avoid
>that.
>
>If it bothers you to hear me say things like this, let me know, and
>I'll write an email to send to people who come in here with these
>questions about the "spam" list.
I'm not bothered, but as I also recall wondering what this report was
about, perhaps it's time for someone to write a short FAQ about it. I'll
host it on my website if you like.
--
Sherilyn
Jeremy
> This is for Sherilyn, too, who says to ignore the report.
>
> I know, but some people really *don't* want to show up on the
> list. So I think it helps to show them ways that they can avoid
> that.
Of course. I just don't want to give the impression that one has
to avoid it, or that being on it is an offense in itself.
> If it bothers you to hear me say things like this, let me know, and
> I'll write an email to send to people who come in here with these
> questions about the "spam" list.
Bothers me? Nah. And if it did, that still doesn't mean you can't
say it. :)
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"Who's scruffy-looking?" --Han Solo
Henrietta Thomas
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk (Sherilyn) wrote:
>In article <37045de2...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>...
>>This is for Sherilyn, too, who says to ignore the report.
>>
>>I know, but some people really *don't* want to show up on the
>>list. So I think it helps to show them ways that they can avoid
>>that.
>>
>>If it bothers you to hear me say things like this, let me know, and
>>I'll write an email to send to people who come in here with these
>>questions about the "spam" list.
>
>I'm not bothered, but as I also recall wondering what this report was
>about, perhaps it's time for someone to write a short FAQ about it. I'll
>host it on my website if you like.
Fluffy once wrote a very nice explanation, and posted it periodically.
Then he asked for volunteers to continue the re-posting and nobody
volunteered. :-)
Fluffy, will you give Sherilyn the Message-ID for your explanation of
the 'spam' list?
Henrietta
Henrietta Thomas
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> This is for Sherilyn, too, who says to ignore the report.
>>
>> I know, but some people really *don't* want to show up on the
>> list. So I think it helps to show them ways that they can avoid
>> that.
>
>Of course. I just don't want to give the impression that one has
>to avoid it, or that being on it is an offense in itself.
But that's the impression a lot of people get from the text in the
original reports.
>> If it bothers you to hear me say things like this, let me know, and
>> I'll write an email to send to people who come in here with these
>> questions about the "spam" list.
>
>Bothers me? Nah. And if it did, that still doesn't mean you can't
>say it. :)
Yeah, I know. I can *say* anything I want, but nobody has to listen.
Henrietta
Sherilyn
>On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 19:47:18 GMT, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
>Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk (Sherilyn) wrote:
>
>>In article <37045de2...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>>...
>>>
>>>I know, but some people really *don't* want to show up on the
>>>list. So I think it helps to show them ways that they can avoid
>>>that.
>>>
>>>I'll write an email to send to people who come in here with these
>>>questions about the "spam" list.
>>
>>about, perhaps it's time for someone to write a short FAQ about it. I'll
>>host it on my website if you like.
>
>Fluffy once wrote a very nice explanation, and posted it periodically.
>Then he asked for volunteers to continue the re-posting and nobody
>volunteered. :-)
>
>Fluffy, will you give Sherilyn the Message-ID for your explanation of
>the 'spam' list?
Given an originating email address and an approximate date, I can locate it
if it's on Deja News.
--
Sherilyn