Re: My Girlfriend Naked 7248
Mike Preston
While your intentions are good, if you are going to post a follow-up
to spam, please eliminate the specific information that only serves to
re-advertise for the spammer.
On many systems, the newsserver will filter out the original post (as
my newsserver did) so the only exposure the spammer gets is from a
response such as yours.
I doubt that was your intent.
mike
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:00:12 GMT, Alan Connor <zzz...@xxx.yyy> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 18:39:11 GMT, leepa...@blueyonder.co.uk <leepa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Pictures of my girlfriend poseing naked
>> http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:xxx/myhomeporn/Girlfriend.scr
>> jnqrckyervlsgqpqlicvgdiwjifsmejkcmjclvieqfszgemowhkofumlejchhlrfpjkqm
>>
>
>Who do you think you are kidding?
>
>Losers like you don't HAVE girlfriends.
>
>You have SMUT which you mistakenly believe that normal people
>are interested in.
>
>AC
>
Alan Connor
>
>
> Alan,
>
> While your intentions are good, if you are going to post a follow-up
> to spam, please eliminate the specific information that only serves to
> re-advertise for the spammer.
>
> On many systems, the newsserver will filter out the original post (as
> my newsserver did) so the only exposure the spammer gets is from a
> response such as yours.
>
> I doubt that was your intent.
>
> mike
Good point. If I get pissed off again in the future with this idiot's
violation of the Usenet (I usually just ignore him) I will be careful
to do what you suggest.
Due to spammers and trolls, we are losing a lot of the most valuable
people to private newsswervers and mailing lists. Unfortunately, these
servers are not interconnected as are the Usenet servers...
I wonder if it isn't time to create another Usenet, one that permits aliases,
(privacy is ok) but only ONE per person, and rejects any posts from that
IP with a different alias/name.
This would be EASY if all the newsservers involved participated.
Any that didn't would be blocked out of the net.
Then, killfiles would actually work, and spam would be impossible.
This is not a pipedream. Anyone can run an NNTP server on a box with a
dsl (etc.) connection that will handle a LOT of users if they just download/
upload and disconnect. Non-standard port(s) could be used, thus
getting around some ISPs. The number of users would determine the
number of newsservers needed. Add more when needed. Take turns...
I am referring to a text ONLY Usenet. The binaries can get their own
server network, which they should have been forced to do a long time
ago. (two entirely different things)
AC
--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net plain-text only no attachments and
no hotmail/yahoo challenge-response protected.
Theo Vermeulen
>
> This is not a pipedream. Anyone can run an NNTP server on a box with a
> dsl (etc.) connection that will handle a LOT of users if they just download/
> upload and disconnect. Non-standard port(s) could be used, thus
> getting around some ISPs. The number of users would determine the
> number of newsservers needed. Add more when needed. Take turns...
That isn't a bad idea!
--
Theo Vermeulen
this-email-addr...@nospam.patat.org
^it_IS_^
#EOF
Jeff G.
news:t8ICc.12638$w07....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net that
appeared as follows:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:37:13 GMT, Mike Preston
> <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> While your intentions are good, if you are going to post a follow-up
>> to spam, please eliminate the specific information that only serves
>> to re-advertise for the spammer.
>>
>> On many systems, the newsserver will filter out the original post (as
>> my newsserver did) so the only exposure the spammer gets is from a
>> response such as yours.
>>
>> I doubt that was your intent.
> violation of the Usenet (I usually just ignore him) I will be careful
> to do what you suggest.
>
> Due to spammers and trolls, we are losing a lot of the most valuable
> people to private newsswervers and mailing lists. Unfortunately, these
> servers are not interconnected as are the Usenet servers...
>
> I wonder if it isn't time to create another Usenet, one that permits
> aliases, (privacy is ok) but only ONE per person, and rejects any
> posts from that
> IP with a different alias/name.
>
> This would be EASY if all the newsservers involved participated.
> Any that didn't would be blocked out of the net.
>
> Then, killfiles would actually work, and spam would be impossible.
>
> This is not a pipedream. Anyone can run an NNTP server on a box with a
> dsl (etc.) connection that will handle a LOT of users if they just
> download/
> upload and disconnect. Non-standard port(s) could be used, thus
> getting around some ISPs. The number of users would determine the
> number of newsservers needed. Add more when needed. Take turns...
>
> I am referring to a text ONLY Usenet. The binaries can get their own
> server network, which they should have been forced to do a long time
> ago. (two entirely different things)
How would you get around the many-to-many relationships between users and
proxies? Not every user connects using only one proxy, and not every proxy
has only one user. I use various proxies, and some of them have more than
one user.
--
Thanks and Best Regards, Jeff G.
My email address in the following is ROT13 encoded to reduce spam:
Guvf vf gur rznvy nqqerff: WIQTWB...@fcnzzbgry.pbz
Alan Connor
Okay, Jeff....Let's see...
A unique password appended to the signature, to be stripped off by the
newsswerver, should do the job. Just make it part of your sig. It
wouldn't be published.
(the post would still have to come from the SAME IP, so that you'd
have to remote login to your regular box to post/download, probably,
if you were out and about)
Usually, there will be a header supplied by the proxy server that gives
the originating IP, but not always.
Is the IP you see on such posts your own or the proxy server's?
(I would, by-the-way, NOT post people's IP on this hypothetical new
Usenet, which would have to be called something else, I would think.
'newsnet'?)
One could also keep people's email addresses off the 'newsnet' by having
people send 'contact requests' to a mail server, which would send the
request (if it conformed to the standards set for them and included
their 'nethandle' AND unique password) on to the addressee, who could
then decide whether or not to mail the person making the request.
People originally requesting an account on the 'newsnet' would have
to return a challenge-response, just like they do to subscribe to
mailing lists.
Anyone got any other ideas?
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:58:49 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:
>>
>> This is not a pipedream. Anyone can run an NNTP server on a box with a
>> dsl (etc.) connection that will handle a LOT of users if they just download/
>> upload and disconnect. Non-standard port(s) could be used, thus
>> getting around some ISPs. The number of users would determine the
>> number of newsservers needed. Add more when needed. Take turns...
>
> That isn't a bad idea!
>
Cool. I could set up a mailing list, for starters ???
INN seems to be a reasonable choice of newsservers. I could have it
installed in a few minutes (got it on a CD) but.......I have a dialup
connection at this point.
I can, though, run a mailing list and handle the 'request server' that
I describe in my response to Jeff.
Thanks, Theo
Theo Vermeulen
>
> Cool. I could set up a mailing list, for starters ???
>
> INN seems to be a reasonable choice of newsservers. I could have it
> installed in a few minutes (got it on a CD) but.......I have a dialup
> connection at this point.
I have a dsl-connection. but I'm mainly wondering how much extra traffic
it'll cause ...
Oh, and I don't know that much 'bout news-servers ... But I'm willing to
learn.
Pointers could be handy :D
> Thanks, Theo
No Problem
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:16:40 GMT, Alan Connor wrote:
>>
>> Cool. I could set up a mailing list, for starters ???
>>
>> INN seems to be a reasonable choice of newsservers. I could have it
>> installed in a few minutes (got it on a CD) but.......I have a dialup
>> connection at this point.
>
> I have a dsl-connection. but I'm mainly wondering how much extra traffic
> it'll cause ...
>
It's your upload bandwidth that sets the limit, which would be the
download limit for subscribers. I did the math, and if people just
hit the server, upload/download, and get off, you can handle hundreds
of users with no problem....can't find the &*&#$ piece of paper with
the figures. I 'talked' to Earthlink about getting DSL and running a
newsserver, and they have no problem with it, as long as it is
non-commercial.
The bandwidth is really low for plain text, and you can compress the
newsfeeds between servers.
> Oh, and I don't know that much 'bout news-servers ... But I'm willing to
> learn.
> Pointers could be handy :D
>
>
I just run a small, local, caching newsserver, but will commence to
install INN and learn how to use it.
news.software.nntp
A lot of INN experts monitor the group.
Will drop you a line. This sounds like a total kick, if you will
excuse the dated colloquialism.
Time to think about a hierarchy of newsgroup categories. No need to
be limited to what the Usenet does...Now where did I put that thinking
cap? :-)
Do you have a good firewall? Like iptables?
AC
Kjetil Torgrim Homme
>
> [Theo Vermeulen]:
> > [Alan Connor]:
> > > This is not a pipedream. Anyone can run an NNTP server on a
> > > box with a dsl (etc.) connection that will handle a LOT of
> > > users if they just download/ upload and
> > > disconnect. Non-standard port(s) could be used, thus getting
> > > around some ISPs. The number of users would determine the
> > > number of newsservers needed. Add more when needed. Take
> > > turns...
> >
> > That isn't a bad idea!
>
> Cool. I could set up a mailing list, for starters ???
usenet 2 has been tried, and it failed (it's still operative, but
there's no traffic). you should research why and how before you
embark on this.
--
Kjetil T.
Alan Connor
Alan Connor
Ok, Kjetil. I've looked over the usenet2 homepage and spotted a serious
error on their part, almost at first glance:
<quote>
Why did my message get cancelled?
...or it was posted without the appropriate magic dust
being added by your ISP to tag it as a Usenet II message. If that's
the case, then your ISP is probably not part of Usenet II. Have a
look further down this list to see how to change that.
</quote>
What we are talking about here is a network of newsservers that would
not require the cooperation or even consent of any ISPs. One that they
couldn't do anything about if they wanted to.
AC
--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net - plain-text only - no attachments and
no hotmail/yahoo - challenge-response protected
Jeff G.
appeared as follows:
It couldn't fly WITH ISPs, you think it could fly WITHOUT ISPs? How?
--
Alan Connor
Hi Jeff.
Didn't say that. I said that their active cooperation wasn't needed. Why
would it be? Millions of people run servers of various kinds over which
their ISPs have no control. I have several.
If 50 people were to run newsservers with only a few hundred subscribers
apiece that hit the server, downloaded/uploaded and got off, and these
were text only downloads limited to a reasonable size (100 lines or
something) and you compressed the newsfeeds, the ISPs wouldn't even notice
it was happenning.
Why would they? You wouldn't be interefering with them or anyone else.
Many individuals use more bandwidth than would be required to pull this off.
It would be a completely de-centralized network, using the ISPs only as
a gateway onto the Internet.
I already 'talked' to Earhthlink about setting up such a server, and they
had no problems with it at all, provided that it was non-commercial. You
just need a static IP, and there are even ways around that.
AC
--
alanconnor AT earthlink DOT net - plain-text only - no attachments and
no hotmail/yahoo - challenge-response protected
~
Jay T. Blocksom
I don't care WHAT you wrote, but stop crossposting it hither and yon:
> Newsgroups: comp.mail.list-admin.policy,
> comp.mail.list-admin.software,
> comp.mail.mh,
> comp.mail.mime,
> comp.mail.misc,
> comp.mail.multi-media,comp.mail.mush,
> comp.mail.mutt,
> comp.mail.pegasus-mail.misc,
> comp.mail.pegasus-mail.ms-windows
(And BTW, you're arguing with a well-known troll/kook.)
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Alan Connor
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:07:48 +0200, Kjetil Torgrim Homme
><kjet...@yksi.ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> I don't care WHAT you wrote, but stop crossposting it hither and yon:
>
> > Newsgroups: comp.mail.list-admin.policy,
> > comp.mail.list-admin.software,
> > comp.mail.mh,
> > comp.mail.mime,
> > comp.mail.misc,
> > comp.mail.multi-media,comp.mail.mush,
> > comp.mail.mutt,
> > comp.mail.pegasus-mail.misc,
> > comp.mail.pegasus-mail.ms-windows
>
> (And BTW, you're arguing with a well-known troll/kook.)
>
> --
>
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
> under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
> $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
So you have a signature that's a gross violation of the Netiquette and
claim that you are going to make any one who sends you spam pay $1500
per spam.
I wonder who it is a bad Usenet citizen and a nutcase who thinks he's
going to collect fines from spammers is calling a "well-known troll/kook?"
That's a mirror you are looking in, fuckwit.
AC