Spam in this group!
rubbishrat
this newsgroup ?
Jerry Peters
> Can nothing be done about the spam that is choking the life out of
> this newsgroup ?
What spam? I don't see any. Then again, I'm not reading this NG via
googlegroups.
Jerry
PeterD
Agreed, it is relatively spam free if you don't use one of the largest
spam houses to access the group.
Grant
>Can nothing be done about the spam that is choking the life out of
>this newsgroup ?
Use a proper news client, b) use a killfile.
Grant.
--
http://bugs.id.au/
propman
> Can nothing be done about the spam that is choking the life out of
> this newsgroup ?
You might want to look into using an alternate newsgroup provider such
as news.eternal-september.org (free access); they filter out 95% of the
junk.
Arfa Daily
"rubbishrat" <rubbi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:608664c7-0f33-4522...@g23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Can nothing be done about the spam that is choking the life out of
> this newsgroup ?
How many times do we have to go through this ? It has been discussed at
length on here about every two months for the last year or more. Use a
proper news provider, and set filters as necessary ...
Arfa
David Nebenzahl
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:20:36 -0700 (PDT), rubbishrat <rubbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can nothing be done about the spam that is choking the life out of
>> this newsgroup ?
>
> Use a proper news client, b) use a killfile.
c) Ignore it. Works for me.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
William R. Walsh
> Can nothing be done about the spam that is choking the life out of
> this newsgroup ?
I have certainly tried to report all of the messages to Google. It
does appear that they do something about it, although it's not a
lasting effect. The spammers pop right back up again in a matter of
days.
The thing that bugs me about it is this: spammers don't stick around
if their campaigns are not successful. And yet these spammers are here
time and again with the same phony products! Someone almost certainly
must be buying this crap...but who is it?
If it was me, I'd be imposing some bans on any IP address even
remotely associated with these spammers. Of course, that may not work
if the machines sending the messages are part of a botnet, but that I
somehow doubt.
William
Robert Macy
I also take time to 'report as spam' the emails. And, it seems there
is some small effect, ...for a few days.
What happened to the old days, when these guys got flamed, or their
websites destroyed by aggressive, and punitive, hackers?
William R. Walsh
> I also take time to 'report as spam' the emails. And, it seems there
> is some small effect, ...for a few days.
Yep, that's exactly how I've perceived it.
> What happened to the old days, when these guys got flamed, or
> their websites destroyed by aggressive, and punitive, hackers?
What I don't understand is how this gets by Google so easily? They're
so very, very proud of the spam filtering technology in Gmail, so why
not deploy it here as well? (People also tell me Gmail's spam
filtering works well. I don't know. I have never used Gmail a day in
my life, nor do I intend to.)
Maybe constant exposure builds tolerance or even reluctant acceptance?
For those who suggest blocking Google Groups, I'm sorry to report that
it's not an option. There are people who have no other way to get to
Usenet for some reason. (I do have access to a real Usenet server, but
I absolutely cannot ever use it from here. That leaves GG as my only
option.) So I refuse to do it on general principles. I'll just have to
put up with my spam. On the plus side, at least I should never end up
hungry. ;-)
William
Ron
> Hi!
>
>> I also take time to 'report as spam' the emails. And, it seems there
>> is some small effect, ...for a few days.
>
> Yep, that's exactly how I've perceived it.
>
>> What happened to the old days, when these guys got flamed, or
>> their websites destroyed by aggressive, and punitive, hackers?
>
> What I don't understand is how this gets by Google so easily? They're
> so very, very proud of the spam filtering technology in Gmail, so why
> not deploy it here as well? (People also tell me Gmail's spam
> filtering works well. I don't know. I have never used Gmail a day in
> my life, nor do I intend to.)
That`s inconsistant with my reality, simply blocking all @gmail posts
reduces the spam to a fairly low level, that combined with those chinese
addies. It looks as tho .yahoo is next for the spam bin.
>
> Maybe constant exposure builds tolerance or even reluctant acceptance?
>
> For those who suggest blocking Google Groups, I'm sorry to report that
> it's not an option.
Of course it`s an option if spam really bothers you, the few kosher
posts you lose by having gmail blocked is pretty small and you usually
pick up the thread when a few replies are posted.
There are people who have no other way to get to
> Usenet for some reason. (I do have access to a real Usenet server, but
> I absolutely cannot ever use it from here.
Maybe people who should be working and not reading newsgroups :)
That leaves GG as my only
> option.) So I refuse to do it on general principles. I'll just have to
> put up with my spam. On the plus side, at least I should never end up
> hungry. ;-)
>
> William
Ron
William R. Walsh
> You are both delusional.
No, I've definitely noticed the effect. The spam will stop...for a
short period of time.
I don't assume that anyone within Google ever actually looks at these
reports, please don't assume that on my part.
But the question that I asked--and the question I'd so badly like an
answer to--is why the spammer keeps coming back? I've seen these same
knockoff goods people on other newsgroups and they do go away. They
usually *stay* away too.
So what do you make of that? I think someone's actually buying this
stuff from them! (I realize exactly how that sounds, don't you worry.)
> It takes a spammer 3ns to get another Google account
> USING THE SAME EMAIL ADDRESS HE WAS USING
> and he's right back at it.
No kidding!
> GOOGLE DOESN'T CARE
> --just long as they are making money.
> Google Groups is where they sent their rejects and retards.
I don't know if that's true or not. It could be. I certainly don't
trust them, hence:
http://greyghost.mooo.com/tor/tor-box.html
I'll tell you right now they don't like that, and the behavior of
their search engine is a tacit admission of such. Suits me fine!
> You need access to Port 119.http://keir.net/portlist.html
> (not blocked by the IT department).
If you're talking to me:
1. I *have* access to a real news server through my ISP. I said that
already. :-)
2. There are very good reasons why the other issue is the way it is.
William
Ken Layton
program installed. Let's me filter out by username and/or keywords.
http://www.source9.com/trollkiller.html
With Trollkiller installed, virtually all spam is gone.
For older operating systems there is also this free killfile program:
Mark Zacharias
news:0676b0a5-bdbe-4551...@y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> The thing that bugs me about it is this: spammers don't stick around
> if their campaigns are not successful. And yet these spammers are here
> time and again with the same phony products! Someone almost certainly
> must be buying this crap...but who is it?
>
<snip>
I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting people
to go to their websites so that they can install viruses, trojans,
keyloggers etc on one's computer.
Mark Z.
William R. Walsh
> I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting
> people to go to their websites so that they can install viruses,
> trojans, keyloggers etc on one's computer.
I hadn't thought of that. Even so, I'd really be surprised if the
regulars in this newsgroup would engage in such risky behavior.
I've never been to any of the spamvertised sites and I never intend to
go there.
William
William R. Walsh
> It looks as tho .yahoo is next for the spam bin.
That's something else I hadn't touched on...I'm also loathe to start
wholesalely blocking not so much because of my own interests but also
because there are people who for whatever reason will come here via
Google Groups or with a freely provided e-mail address who really do
need help with something.
Whether anyone would care to admit it or not, Google Groups is the one
"immediately obvious" choice for many of these people who have no idea
what Usenet is* or who have been unceremoniously booted off of the
real deal by their ISP.
I can put up with some annoyance (and I've developed some pretty good
filters that are catching 96% or so of the offending posts) if it
means being able to help someone out with a problem or question.
William
* yes, I know that some of these people behave in a dumb fashion.
However, there are some that don't suffer from that despite not
knowing what Usenet really is.
Ron
@yahoo.cn is the one to block, in fact, probably anything ending in .cn!
David Nebenzahl
> [some unattributed poster wrote:]
None of what you've just said makes the slightest difference. You're
trying to attribute spammers' behavior to some kind of logic, which is
completely undeserved.
Methinks their strategy is usually (always?) some variant of "just throw
a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks". Posting spam here and
elsewhere costs them pretty much nothing; why *shouldn't* they do it?
(From their POV, of course, not mine.) It's not as if they're doing any
kind of sophisticated econometric analysis to see how they should
allocate their marketing resources ...
PeterD
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>On 4/28/2010 8:29 AM William R. Walsh spake thus:
>
> > [some unattributed poster wrote:]
> >
>>> I don't think they are so much interested in selling crap as getting
>>> people to go to their websites so that they can install viruses,
>>> trojans, keyloggers etc on one's computer.
>>
>> I hadn't thought of that. Even so, I'd really be surprised if the
>> regulars in this newsgroup would engage in such risky behavior.
>>
>> I've never been to any of the spamvertised sites and I never intend to
>> go there.
>
>None of what you've just said makes the slightest difference. You're
>trying to attribute spammers' behavior to some kind of logic, which is
>completely undeserved.
>
>Methinks their strategy is usually (always?) some variant of "just throw
>a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks". Posting spam here and
>elsewhere costs them pretty much nothing; why *shouldn't* they do it?
>(From their POV, of course, not mine.) It's not as if they're doing any
>kind of sophisticated econometric analysis to see how they should
>allocate their marketing resources ...
There is a simple solution. A robot network that does a DOS on all IPs
that are found in spams, so that spammers find that they are spending
a lot of money on their Internet connection and getting no return from
the investment.
Now if someone would actually do that. All it takes is a short little
program that grabs the spam web page, over and over and over and over.
Les Matthew
http://www.eternal-september.org/
I'll second that.
Started using them after clara.net stopped its text only news service
and the drop in spam is noticeable. Actually, it's very noticeable. :)
les...