NASTY SPAM ATTACK
John Harshman
titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
in the future?
(Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
the mass of spam.)
Glenn
wrote:
I don't know whether DIG has considered registration, but perhaps he
should.
Mike Dworetsky
news:MUD7j.5589$fl7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
I think the term for this sort of attack is "sporge". All it takes is a
netloon or pimply 14 yearold who just wants to be a nuisance. However, I
found this on another newsgroup being bugged by this. Apparently the
sporger is using a made-up message ID and maybe our moderator can use this
fact to filter it out. The usual real message ID is much longer than 8
characters.
Perhaps DIG can filter out this attack, for now anyways, using what I saw
elsewhere on another newsgroup.
<<quote>>
About the sporge - you can go to news.software.readers and read the recent
thread about [xnews] kill by M-ID.
essential point seems to be that the messge id is apparently 8 hexadecimal
digits.
John Wunderlich <jwund...@lycos.com> writes thusly:
<begin quote>
More than being just any 8 characters, it appears to be 8 Hexadecimal
characters {0-9} and {a-f}
Try this one:
Score: -9999
Message-ID: <[a-f\d]{8}@
Use of the colon (:) rather than equals (=) after Message-ID will
make it case insensitive.
<end quote>
<<end quote>>
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Lucifer
wrote:
> Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
> titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
> in the future?
They seem to have hit alt.atheism too. While there is nothing that can
be fnording done over there, we have a fnording moderator, so perhaps
it's possible to take action.
James Goetz
Republican or Democrat?
Glenn
All your bases are us.
r norman
Strange. I never saw the attack with my news server
news20.forteinc.com.
This is the server that rejected my posting a message containing a URL
it thought was a spam generator.
I have now checked using a different server
newsgroups.comcast.net
and the attack showed up, as of course it did using Google groups.
Homer Sapiens
There sould be someway to prevent this from happening. There are
aspects of this I find very troubling.
James Goetz
alt.atheism is commited to anarchism, so they will never moderate.
Ray Martinez
As long as no one makes any replies to this heap of garbage it should
be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
Ray
Glenn
What are some? DIG has unlimited power already, and excercises bans. I
don't see where there would be a significant difference. Although I
admit I haven't the slightest idea whether registration would help at
all in the future, or cause DIG more work than he is willing to do for
the benefit.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
I never saw it. Did DIG clean it out soon after it appeared?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > What are some? DIG has unlimited power already, and excercises bans. I
> > don't see where there would be a significant difference. Although I
> > admit I haven't the slightest idea whether registration would help at
> > all in the future, or cause DIG more work than he is willing to do for
> > the benefit.
>
> his life easier. And perhaps he needs assistance/deputy moderators (so
> that he can also take time off when he wants).
Wouldn't registration serve? Only those that have verified addresses
would be allowed. Perhaps that could be automated, not take a new
poster long to apply, and leave DIG out of it?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> As long as no one makes any replies to this heap of garbage it should
> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>
Funny, that's what we say about YOU, Ray.
(snicker) (giggle)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Lucifer
Idiot
A.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f22d3dec-8195-4241...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I dunno. Same thing has been going on, on alt.true-crime for weeks now.
Mainy unusable at this point.
A.
>
> Ray
>
James Goetz
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> As long as no one makes any replies to this heap of garbage it should
> >> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>
> > Funny, that's what we say about YOU, Ray.
>
> > (snicker) (giggle)
>
Yes, but don't you think that he set himself up. It's like he did it
intentionally.
John Harshman
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:09:39 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>
>
>>Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>>titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>>post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>>in the future?
>>
>>(Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>>the mass of spam.)
>
>
> I never saw it. Did DIG clean it out soon after it appeared?
I don't think he would have any way of doing that, and if he did I would
have no way of knowing it had happened. Once the post has passed through
the moderator bot it propagates to news servers on its own. It appears
that some servers have the ability to notice and reject at least some
kinds of forged message IDs, and perhaps your server is one. Or perhaps
propagation is slow by whatever path.
Kevin Wayne Williams
wandering from group to group for nearly a year now. He's quite capable
of posting past a moderator (it really isn't all the difficult for
anyone that really wants to), so there isn't much that DIG could or can do.
Those of us on Supernews didn't see a thing. One of the reasons I use them.
KWW
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
>
> >> As long as no one makes any replies to this heap of garbage it should
> >> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>
> > Funny, that's what we say about YOU, Ray.
>
> > (snicker) (giggle)
>
Aw, come on, you *can't* expect me not to swing at a softball lob like
THAT one . . . . . .
:)
Yes, Ray is right. But heck, even a stopped cuckoo clock is right
twice a day.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
>
> alt.atheism is commited to anarchism,
Hear, hear. (waves the black flag and sings . . . uh . . .
sings . . . heck, do anarchists even HAVE an anthem . . .?)
;)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:09:39 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>
> >Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
> >titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> >post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
> >in the future?
>
> >(Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
> >the mass of spam.)
>
> I never saw it. Did DIG clean it out soon after it appeared?
It's pee'ing all over Google Groups.
Shane
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
>> On Dec 11, 5:36 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As long as no one makes any replies to this heap of garbage it should
>>> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>>
>> Funny, that's what we say about YOU, Ray.
>>
>> (snicker) (giggle)
>
> He's right for once. Can you bring yourself to admit that? ;)
No, because Ray has often stated that if a known atheist
agrees with him it will be a sign that he, Ray, is wrong. If
Lenny agreed then Ray would be wrong. So the only thing you
can do in the rare occasions that Ray is correct about
something is to withhold any endorsement of his correctness.
Glenn
> Glenn wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> >> Glenn wrote:
> >> > What are some? DIG has unlimited power already, and excercises bans.
> >> > I don't see where there would be a significant difference. Although I
> >> > admit I haven't the slightest idea whether registration would help at
> >> > all in the future, or cause DIG more work than he is willing to do
> >> > for the benefit.
>
> >> Perhaps DIG needs more, and more sophisticated, automated tools to make
> >> his life easier. And perhaps he needs assistance/deputy moderators (so
> >> that he can also take time off when he wants).
>
> > Wouldn't registration serve?
>
> newsgroup.
Why? This group *is* moderated.
>
> > Only those that have verified addresses would be allowed.
>
> That still constitutes an obstacle to posting. I don't like that. In some
> situations schemes like this may be unavoidable. I'm not opposed to the
> fnord thing for Google users. But we should try not to make this even
> worse.
There are more obstacles, if it could be called that, to posting that
registering with a group or website. I don't see it as any big deal,
since I am registered up the ying yang on many sites. Do it once, only
takes a minute. I see it as a much better alternative to fnording, and
that appears to have failed to prevent the only real disruption I've
ever seen on t.o. And since DIG began to employ the fnord policy
recently, starting with okaying posters manually, it appears either to
not be effective or DIG has halted the policy. I lost a couple posts
before DIG okayed me, and I haven't put fnord into any posts except
this one. The latest spam flood posts did not have fnord in the
message body or headers.
>
> > Perhaps that could be automated, not take a new poster
> > long to apply, and leave DIG out of it?
>
> As it is now, he would still be the one who has to implement this scheme.
> He holds the keys at this point. This is also unfair to him. Perhaps he
> does not have the time to spend to develop new solutions. Or the
> resources, or the specific knowledge, or the motivation, or whatever. I
> would be pretty sick and tired of t.o by now, if I were him. I would be
> looking for a new hobby, and at the same time I would feel I could not
> abandon the moderatorship. If that is a word. Well, you know what I mean.
No. Your idea was that DIG needed more automated tools.
>
> I guess what I like to see is for a small handful of talented IT people
> to get together and work with DIG on this. I would volunteer my scanty
> skills, if not for other reasons. Yes, I know, the same is probably true
> for most people.
I don't know the software. But I can't imagine it would be a difficult
task to develop a search database with allowed posters combined with a
email verification program.
>
> So, everything stays the same... And once in a while t.o will have floods
> like we have seen today or other problems.
I've never seen anything like this, and I wouldn't count on the
philosophy that everything stays the same. Some things are getting
worse.
As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent this from happening, and
even choking Darwin, constantly for hours at a time, except for DIG to
physically intervene before they are passed through the bot filter.
James Goetz
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:MUD7j.5589$fl7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
> > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
> > in the future?
>
> > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
> > the mass of spam.)
>
> netloon or pimply 14 yearold who just wants to be a nuisance. However, I
> found this on another newsgroup being bugged by this. Apparently the
> sporger is using a made-up message ID and maybe our moderator can use this
> fact to filter it out. The usual real message ID is much longer than 8
> characters.
>
> Perhaps DIG can filter out this attack, for now anyways, using what I saw
> elsewhere on another newsgroup.
We have to be careful with how we talk about it. DIG is tempormental.
He never likes it if somebody publicly suggest banning a newsgroup
abuser.
snip
geo...@hotmail.com
> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>
>
> >> As long as no one makes any replies to this heap of garbage it should
> >> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>
> > Funny, that's what we say about YOU, Ray.
>
> > (snicker) (giggle)
>
I shall. Let it be on record that Ray was correct. :3
geo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
> titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
> in the future?
>
> (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
> the mass of spam.)
just testing... fnord
George
"Homer Sapiens" <ej.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0894f82b-2702-480e...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> should.
>
>
> There sould be someway to prevent this from happening. There are
> aspects of this I find very troubling.
These sporge attacks have been going on for weeks, particularly in the
amateur astronomy newsgroup. I see no end to it, and have no idea how it
can be stopped. It is frustrating.
George
Cory Albrecht
> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>> titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>> post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>> in the future?
>>
>> (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>> the mass of spam.)
>
> I don't know whether DIG has considered registration, but perhaps he
> should.
Registrations sound initially like a good idea, but then imagine what
would have happened in this case. Darwin wold have sent out hundreds of
emails telling people they need to reply/go to a website/whatever to
have their first post to t.o go through. IF those emails were real,
culled from Usenet, say, or other sources, then you have hundred of
people going "WTF?" and thinking that Darwin is a spammer and the
edicara.org admins (DIG? Wes? Others?) get a whole crapload of compaints
in their in boxes.
If they are non-existent email addresses, then Darwin wastes resourcs on
trying to send them all out, filling up the spool until they final
expire (my sendmail tries for a week) and then DIG gets a whole load of
crap in his inbox to sort through.
Now even my old P2-350 (former mail server, current firewall) could
handle 500 emails, without adversely affecting anything else, though the
load would be noticeably higher. But imagine a true attack, consisting
of 1000s of zombie computers, not just one, each sending in hundreds of
posts each. Darwin would easily be overwhelmed and DIG would have to do
some shovelling to get it out from under. And I am sure that Darwin is
more powerful than my current best machine - a dual Xeon 3.6GHz with 4
gigs of RAM.
Free Lunch
"George" <geo...@yourservice.com> wrote in
<dkG7j.17867$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
Does Roadrunner care?
Free Lunch
James Goetz <james...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<486cac05-dc8e-4e5f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
The problem is that this clown creates a new email address each time. I
don't think that DIG wants to ban all roadrunner users, though he might
filter them, too.
michael
wrote:
No, these are pirated accounts, sent through a computer program
written to do specifically this ...
*Hemidactylus*
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> > > > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
> > > > in the future?
>
> > > > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
> > > > the mass of spam.)
>
> > > should.
>
> > There sould be someway to prevent this from happening. There are
> > aspects of this I find very troubling.
>
> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>
effort. You'll be sure to get responses to it
Oh wait were you talking about something else...perhaps that recent
sporge attack?
*Hemidactylus*
> On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > alt.atheism is commited to anarchism,
>
> Hear, hear. (waves the black flag and sings . . . uh . . .
> sings . . . heck, do anarchists even HAVE an anthem . . .?)
>
> ;)
>
michael
wrote:
So first they practiced on the astronomy group, saw it
worked, hacked your server first, then sent it here,
their real target; I guess my friends wanted to say
hi to your little corner of the net ...
Lucifer
>
> >> alt.atheism is commited to anarchism, so they will never moderate.
>
> > Idiot
>
I know that a.a will never moderate, in fact, I stated it quite
clearly in my post. I was referring to T.O having a moderator, so
perhaps something can be done about it over here.
Rodjk #613
Glenn, one of the issues is that already, the way things are now, some
posters have complained of censorship by DIG.
On the fairness issue, I don't think DIG wants to make that sort of
thing more complicated.
Rodjk #613
Rodjk #613
To give an example of my comment that people already complain about
moderation, see the thread "Talk.origins unmoderated" .
Rodjk #613
David Iain Greig
Unless I enthusiastically agree, as in this case. I don't think banning
someone should be some kind of unpopularity contest. I make the call,
I don't like people jogging my elbow, is all. If it's manifestly bannable,
as this twat is being, feel free to chime in.
--D.
David Iain Greig
> Glenn wrote:
>
>> What are some? DIG has unlimited power already, and excercises bans. I
>> don't see where there would be a significant difference. Although I
>> admit I haven't the slightest idea whether registration would help at
>> all in the future, or cause DIG more work than he is willing to do for
>> the benefit.
>
> Perhaps DIG needs more, and more sophisticated, automated tools to make
> his life easier. And perhaps he needs assistance/deputy moderators (so
> that he can also take time off when he wants).
Actually, I'm not the only moderator of talk.origins.
--D.
Greg Esres
Why can't the robo-moderator weed out postings with excessively long
subjects? (There would be side benefits to this.)
alextangent
wrote:
> Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
> titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> in the future?
>
> (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
> the mass of spam.)
See comp.arch. It's been going on for more than a week there; it can
destroy a medium volume newsgroup in no time at all.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
AC
James Goetz <james...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>> > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>> > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>> > in the future?
>>
>> > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>> > the mass of spam.)
>>
>> should.
>
Communist!
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
AC
Homer Sapiens <ej.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>> > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>> > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>> > in the future?
>>
>> > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>> > the mass of spam.)
>>
>> I don't know whether DIG has considered registration, but perhaps he
>> should.
>
>
> aspects of this I find very troubling.
I suppose DIG could extending fnording to all posts. Otherwise, no, there's
no real way to prevent this. NNTP was designed for a kinder, gentler age.
AC
I think you're ignoring the architecture of NNTP.
David Iain Greig
If this was required to block spam, I could, simply. It isn't, I'm not.
--D. 'for now'
Mike Dworetsky
news:cabal-slrnfluq...@darwin.ediacara.org...
This loon/nutcase has been bombarding many other groups; the only other ones
I have seen are rec.arts.sf.written and sci.astro, with the prime goal of
rendering the groups unusable. The messages are generated by some sort of
program and the addresses nym-shift on each and every one, to make it
impossible to "block sender". Someone spotted that the weakness is the
faked message-ids.
If you can put a stop to this getting through, please do!
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
SeppoP
It should be possible to block by ip address. All of that crap were
coming from 207.38.175.3 (well, it can be forged).
whois 207.38.175.3
shows:
OrgName: RCN Corporation
OrgID: RCN
Address: 196 Van Buren St.
City: Herndon
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20170
Country: US
NetRange: 207.38.128.0 - 207.38.255.255
CIDR: 207.38.128.0/17
NetName: RCN-BLK-12
NetHandle: NET-207-38-128-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: AUTH1.DNS.RCN.NET
NameServer: AUTH2.DNS.RCN.NET
NameServer: AUTH3.DNS.RCN.NET
NameServer: AUTH4.DNS.RCN.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate:
Updated: 2002-11-05
RTechHandle: ZR40-ARIN
RTechName: RCN Corporation
RTechPhone: +1-888-972-6622
RTechEmail: n...@rcn.com
OrgAbuseHandle: RAD75-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: RCN Abuse Department
OrgAbusePhone: +1-888-972-6622
OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@rcn.com
OrgNOCHandle: ZR40-ARIN
OrgNOCName: RCN Corporation
OrgNOCPhone: +1-888-972-6622
OrgNOCEmail: n...@rcn.com
OrgTechHandle: ZR40-ARIN
OrgTechName: RCN Corporation
OrgTechPhone: +1-888-972-6622
OrgTechEmail: n...@rcn.com
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-12-11 19:10
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Al
> >> Perhaps DIG needs more, and more sophisticated, automated tools to make
> >> his life easier. And perhaps he needs assistance/deputy moderators (so
> >> that he can also take time off when he wants).
>
> > I think you're ignoring the architecture of NNTP.
>
> anything is possible.
Oh dear, I see a future of third party filter modules. And massive
over CPUed servers to use the suckers.
Maybe we should just track down the spammer and killfile him the old
fashioned way.
Al
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord truth fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord truth fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord bulls fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord fnord
fnord
Mike Dworetsky
news:5s9h1lF...@mid.individual.net...
Presumably the IP addresses are assigned dynamically and can shift from day
to day but always be in this range. From some gleaning on other attacked
groups, RCN was asked to curtail the activities of its anti-social user (who
presumably can be identified by company records) and refused or claimed not
to be able to do this. The problem is that blocking the entire range of IP
addresses for RCN would "censor" innocent users too. Maybe that will have
to happen.
SeppoP
Yes, I know the problem for "innocent" users if the range of DHCP addresses were blocked.
On the other hand, RCN would want to keep their customers and might consider action against
the spammer. They *know* who was in "possession" of that IP during the attack, so it would
be rather simple for them to act.
janp...@gmail.com
wrote:
...
> It was probably part of the near infinite Hipcrime attack, that has been
> wandering from group to group for nearly a year now.
...
This recent attack is done by creatures which can be called
"serpents". Their better description is provided on another thread
from this group at the address
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/eac4796edbd9fd18#77452320f0928269
. I understand that most of you do NOT believe that such "serpents" do
exists, but what happens on this group is an evidence of their
physical existence and secretive interference in matters of this
group. These "serpents" have a proverb which they told me (I have a
doubtful honor of knowing several of them "in person"). It states
that, quote: "If you wish to hide a tree, you need to plant an entire
forest around it". Actually, the tree which these serpents tried to
hide by this recent flood of threads are two posts, namely from
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/f0db43099e233aef
and from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/eac4796edbd9fd18#77452320f0928269
. They (serpents) do these kinds of tricks to me quite frequently, so
I am already used to their nonsense.
If you wish to learn more about serpents, including seeing their
photographs, you should visit my web page "evil.htm", which should be
available under any of the following addresses (if these serpents have
not sabotaged it yet):
http://bible.webng.com/evil.htm
http://energy.atspace.org/evil.htm
http://evidence.ueuo.com/evil.htm
http://evil.thefreehost.biz/evil.htm
http://fruit.sitesled.com/evil.htm
http://fruit.xphost.org/evil.htm
http://god.ez-sites.ws/evil.htm
http://karma.freewebpages.org/evil.htm
http://magnocraft.jp.md/evil.htm
http://memorial.awardspace.info/evil.htm
http://newzealand.myfreewebs.net/evil.htm
http://nirvana.scienceontheweb.net/evil.htm
http://pigs.freehyperspace.com/evil.htm
http://parasitism.about.tc/evil.htm
http://parasitism.xphost.org/evil.htm
http://rubik.hits.io/evil.htm
http://tornado.99k.org/evil.htm
http://users3.nofeehost.com/devils/evil.htm
http://wszewilki.greatnow.com/evil.htm
You can also learn a lot about them from blogs of totalizm which
should be visible under addresses:
http://www.getablog.net/totalizm
http://totalizm.wordpress.com
http://totalizm.myblog.net
http://www.newfreehost.com/weblog/?u=god
With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak (Prof. Dr Eng.)
P.S. I can recognize from their style of writing, that some posts on
this thread here are also prepared by these serpents. They are to
divert your attention from who really is to blame for all this spam.
They (serpents) are very good in finding scapegoats and in shifting
the blame for what they have done on these scapegoats.
Therion Ware
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:52:49 +0200, SeppoP wrote in message
<5s9iaiF...@mid.individual.net>:
[Snip]
>Yes, I know the problem for "innocent" users if the range of DHCP addresses were blocked.
>On the other hand, RCN would want to keep their customers and might consider action against
>the spammer. They *know* who was in "possession" of that IP during the attack, so it would
>be rather simple for them to act.
207-38-175-3.c3-0.wsd-ubr5.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com [207.38.175.3]
Probably a cable modem connection, and those don't change IP address
with any great frequency, provided the spammer leaves it switched on
all the time.
But more interestingly, I wonder who recently got trashed in
alt.atheism and/or talk.origins under the same or a similar IP
address.
--
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
attrib: Pauline Réage.
-
www.eac-nudis.com = Evil Atheist Conspiracy NNTP / Usenet Distributed Intelligence System...
Jim Willemin
news:5s9iaiF...@mid.individual.net:
<snipo whois data>
>
I recently had to deal with a hacked pc that was quietly flooding the
net with spam emails - I ain't too bright, so eventually all I could do
was block it from using smtp, which at least kept its spew in the house,
so to speak. But here is the deal: having once had the misfortune of
getting an email from my ISP abuse department, there are a couple of
questions, to wit - 1) Does anyone know if sporge attacks tend to be
released from hacked computers? 2) If so, how effective is it to remove
the point source of an outbreak, given that the actual disease began
elsewhere?
I'd like to thank DIG for rapidly stopping the flood - David, I have
lurked here for quite a while, off and on, and I believe that your wise
and compassionate moderation has made talk.origins a truly useful and
interesting place to be. For what it's worth, you have my thanks.
SeppoP
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:52:49 +0200, SeppoP wrote in message
> <5s9iaiF...@mid.individual.net>:
>
>
> [Snip]
>
>> Yes, I know the problem for "innocent" users if the range of DHCP addresses were blocked.
>> On the other hand, RCN would want to keep their customers and might consider action against
>> the spammer. They *know* who was in "possession" of that IP during the attack, so it would
>> be rather simple for them to act.
>
> 207-38-175-3.c3-0.wsd-ubr5.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com [207.38.175.3]
>
> Probably a cable modem connection, and those don't change IP address
> with any great frequency, provided the spammer leaves it switched on
> all the time.
>
> But more interestingly, I wonder who recently got trashed in
> alt.atheism and/or talk.origins under the same or a similar IP
> address.
>
I maintain my own kookbase about kooks collected from t.o. and there are no known prior entries with the address or even
from rcn.
The database isn't perfect and it is only about a year old.
>
> --
> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
> attrib: Pauline Réage.
> -
> www.eac-nudis.com = Evil Atheist Conspiracy NNTP / Usenet Distributed Intelligence System...
>
Robert Carnegie
> There are more obstacles, if it could be called that, to posting that
> registering with a group or website. I don't see it as any big deal,
> since I am registered up the ying yang on many sites. Do it once, only
> takes a minute. I see it as a much better alternative to fnording, and
> that appears to have failed to prevent the only real disruption I've
> ever seen on t.o. And since DIG began to employ the fnord policy
> recently, starting with okaying posters manually, it appears either to
> not be effective or DIG has halted the policy. I lost a couple posts
> before DIG okayed me, and I haven't put fnord into any posts except
> this one. The latest spam flood posts did not have fnord in the
> message body or headers.
Fnord is only for Google Groups posting - for now. HĄpcrime is
posting by other means.
The remark about posting regardless of moderation is troubling.
And... you reflect, this is a world where someone gets shot because
they used an unreasonable amount of toilet paper, but this conduct
apparently passes... Do you think we should track down and whack
him? There would be a hundred million suspects, they'd never get us.
On the other hand, a hundred million people could be convicted of
conspiracy to murder. And most of them vote Democrat. Okay, let's
not do that.
chris thompson
> "Homer Sapiens" <ej.spa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0894f82b-2702-480e...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
> >> > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be
> >> > prevented
> >> > in the future?
>
> >> > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
> >> > the mass of spam.)
>
> >> should.
>
> > There sould be someway to prevent this from happening. There are
> > aspects of this I find very troubling.
>
> amateur astronomy newsgroup. I see no end to it, and have no idea how it
> can be stopped. It is frustrating.
>
> George
Actually they've been going on for months or years. As I wrote in
another thread, sci.bio.microbiology has been useless for months.
There seems to be a letup, some folks come back, and it gets slammed
again. Most of the regulars migrated to a moderated Yahoo! group, and
s.b.m is pretty much dead. The same thing happened to to rec.aquaria
long, long ago, and the last post on sci.military.moderated (8August)
is an announcement that a sporge attack was incoming.
sigh. The Vandals brought down Rome, too (and before anyone jumps on
that, I know that wasn't the only thing).
Chris
fnord
chris thompson
> On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > alt.atheism is commited to anarchism,
>
> Hear, hear. (waves the black flag and sings . . . uh . . .
> sings . . . heck, do anarchists even HAVE an anthem . . .?)
>
> ;)
OF COURSE they do. Lots of them, in fact.
Chris
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank
> "There are no loose threads in the web of life"
>
> Editor, Red and Black Publishershttp://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
Cory Albrecht
> anything is possible.
The architecture of NNTP is such that it is trivially easy to get around
a robo-moderator.
Cory Albrecht
Out of simple curiosity, how difficult/simple would it be for you to
have everything filter through SpamAsassing, Amavis, etc? I mean without
caring about performance hits, simply setting up the filtering.
Cory Albrecht
> Cory Albrecht wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> If they are non-existent email addresses, then Darwin wastes resourcs on
>> trying to send them all out, filling up the spool until they final
>> expire (my sendmail tries for a week) and then DIG gets a whole load of
>> crap in his inbox to sort through.
>
> If they are non-existent addresses there are ways of checking that.
If the SMTP server has VRFY turned off, and the majority do, then the
only way to verify it is to try and send it and see if it bounces. Even
then, with the growing use of grey-listing, a rejection of the initial
attempt at delivery is not necessarily an indication of a non-existent
address. The server attempting to deliver the message only has the
option of re-trying until its timeout happens and it discards the unsent
email.
wakboth
> nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
> > Glenn wrote:
>
> >> What are some? DIG has unlimited power already, and excercises bans. I
> >> don't see where there would be a significant difference. Although I
> >> admit I haven't the slightest idea whether registration would help at
> >> all in the future, or cause DIG more work than he is willing to do for
> >> the benefit.
>
> > Perhaps DIG needs more, and more sophisticated, automated tools to make
> > his life easier. And perhaps he needs assistance/deputy moderators (so
> > that he can also take time off when he wants).
>
>
> --D.
Are you trying to pass the buck, or absolve yourself if
something was done, you had no knowledge?
Are you the head moderator or not?
When you are caught, are you going to blame
your little minions?
Now just in the post before this one, you take full
responsibility:
'I don't think banning
someone should be some kind of unpopularity contest. I make the
call'
Not other moderators.
This rests solely on you.
fnord
David Iain Greig
I use procmail as it is. My personal mail, I use Spamassassin and other
tools.
--D.
David Iain Greig
User banned for forgery.
--D. 'howzatthen'
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
Wakboth
> wakboth <wakboth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not other moderators.
>
> > This rests solely on you.
>
> > fnord
>
> User banned for forgery.
>
> --D. 'howzatthen'
Thank you heartily.
-- Wakboth
Mike Dworetsky
news:Xns9A04444263E9Dj...@216.196.97.131...
[snip]
>
> I recently had to deal with a hacked pc that was quietly flooding the
> net with spam emails - I ain't too bright, so eventually all I could do
> was block it from using smtp, which at least kept its spew in the house,
> so to speak. But here is the deal: having once had the misfortune of
> getting an email from my ISP abuse department, there are a couple of
> questions, to wit - 1) Does anyone know if sporge attacks tend to be
> released from hacked computers? 2) If so, how effective is it to remove
> the point source of an outbreak, given that the actual disease began
> elsewhere?
>
> I'd like to thank DIG for rapidly stopping the flood - David, I have
> lurked here for quite a while, off and on, and I believe that your wise
> and compassionate moderation has made talk.origins a truly useful and
> interesting place to be. For what it's worth, you have my thanks.
>
Um, what he said!
Mike L
> James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> > We have to be careful with how we talk about it. DIG is tempormental.
> > He never likes it if somebody publicly suggest banning a newsgroup
> > abuser.
>
> someone should be some kind of unpopularity contest. � I make the call,
> I don't like people jogging my elbow, is all. �If it's manifestly bannable,
> as this twat is being, feel free to chime in.
Well, tough tittie, son. I don't care that much, but people have got a
perfect right to jog your elbow, and you've voluntarily accepted a
position in which your personal feelings shouldn't be a major factor.
This is Usenet, not private property.
As a rule, these flooding attacks fade away quite quickly: such things
can be used to effectively wipe out a newsgroup, but that's rare.
fnord
--
Mike.
Glenn
> On Dec 11, 6:52 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 4:29 pm, nmp <addr...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Glenn wrote:
> > > >> Glenn wrote:
> > > >> > What are some? DIG has unlimited power already, and excercises bans.
> > > >> > I don't see where there would be a significant difference. Although I
> > > >> > admit I haven't the slightest idea whether registration would help at
> > > >> > all in the future, or cause DIG more work than he is willing to do
> > > >> > for the benefit.
>
> > > >> Perhaps DIG needs more, and more sophisticated, automated tools to make
> > > >> his life easier. And perhaps he needs assistance/deputy moderators (so
> > > >> that he can also take time off when he wants).
>
>
> > > Kind of defeats the idea of having a newsgroup on Usenet. Especially THIS
> > > newsgroup.
>
> > Why? This group *is* moderated.
>
> > > > Only those that have verified addresses would be allowed.
>
> > > That still constitutes an obstacle to posting. I don't like that. In some
> > > situations schemes like this may be unavoidable. I'm not opposed to the
> > > fnord thing for Google users. But we should try not to make this even
> > > worse.
>
> > There are more obstacles, if it could be called that, to posting that
> > registering with a group or website. I don't see it as any big deal,
> > since I am registered up the ying yang on many sites. Do it once, only
> > takes a minute. I see it as a much better alternative to fnording, and
> > that appears to have failed to prevent the only real disruption I've
> > ever seen on t.o. And since DIG began to employ the fnord policy
> > recently, starting with okaying posters manually, it appears either to
> > not be effective or DIG has halted the policy. I lost a couple posts
> > before DIG okayed me, and I haven't put fnord into any posts except
> > this one. The latest spam flood posts did not have fnord in the
> > message body or headers.
>
> > > > long to apply, and leave DIG out of it?
>
> > > As it is now, he would still be the one who has to implement this scheme.
> > > He holds the keys at this point. This is also unfair to him. Perhaps he
> > > does not have the time to spend to develop new solutions. Or the
> > > resources, or the specific knowledge, or the motivation, or whatever. I
> > > would be pretty sick and tired of t.o by now, if I were him. I would be
> > > looking for a new hobby, and at the same time I would feel I could not
> > > abandon the moderatorship. If that is a word. Well, you know what I mean.
>
> > No. Your idea was that DIG needed more automated tools.
>
> > > I guess what I like to see is for a small handful of talented IT people
> > > to get together and work with DIG on this. I would volunteer my scanty
> > > skills, if not for other reasons. Yes, I know, the same is probably true
> > > for most people.
>
> > I don't know the software. But I can't imagine it would be a difficult
> > task to develop a search database with allowed posters combined with a
> > email verification program.
>
> > > So, everything stays the same... And once in a while t.o will have floods
> > > like we have seen today or other problems.
>
> > I've never seen anything like this, and I wouldn't count on the
> > philosophy that everything stays the same. Some things are getting
> > worse.
> > As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent this from happening, and
> > even choking Darwin, constantly for hours at a time, except for DIG to
> > physically intervene before they are passed through the bot filter.
>
> Glenn, one of the issues is that already, the way things are now, some
> posters have complained of censorship by DIG.
> On the fairness issue, I don't think DIG wants to make that sort of
> thing more complicated.
>
I don't see any complication of any fairness issue. DIG can and does
censor and ban now. What difference would it make were new posters
required to submit to a bot verification of address and recording?
Seems it could only make DIG's job easier. And I don't see where an
appearance of unjust behavior on his part would be perceived any more
or less as a result of registration. When you are banned, you are
banned. One can't complain to the t.o. readers through the group now.
What would be the diff?
Glenn
> On Dec 12, 12:52 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > There are more obstacles, if it could be called that, to posting that
> > registering with a group or website. I don't see it as any big deal,
> > since I am registered up the ying yang on many sites. Do it once, only
> > takes a minute. I see it as a much better alternative to fnording, and
> > that appears to have failed to prevent the only real disruption I've
> > ever seen on t.o. And since DIG began to employ the fnord policy
> > recently, starting with okaying posters manually, it appears either to
> > not be effective or DIG has halted the policy. I lost a couple posts
> > before DIG okayed me, and I haven't put fnord into any posts except
> > this one. The latest spam flood posts did not have fnord in the
> > message body or headers.
>
> Fnord is only for Google Groups posting - for now. HĄpcrime is
> posting by other means.
Yes, it slipped my mind. But it seems logical to me to require it for
all if at all, not just google gus's.
And DIG's interim "manual" approvals seem to be similar to and have
the same benefit as what I am suggesting, to force registration.,
except to make it automatic initially takes it out of DIG's hands.
>
> The remark about posting regardless of moderation is troubling.
You lost me. I made no such remark I can see. Perhaps you're referring
to another's remarks.
> And... you reflect, this is a world where someone gets shot because
> they used an unreasonable amount of toilet paper, but this conduct
> apparently passes... Do you think we should track down and whack
> him? There would be a hundred million suspects, they'd never get us.
> On the other hand, a hundred million people could be convicted of
> conspiracy to murder. And most of them vote Democrat. Okay, let's
> not do that.
Let em all run free. Toilet paper is cheap.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
>
> Communist!
Hear, hear! (waves red flag and sings "The Internationale") --
"Ariiiiiise, ye victims of opreeeeeeeeeesion, ariiiiise, ye wretched
of the eaaaaarrrrrrth . . . ."
;)
Klaus H
> On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>>> titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>>> in the future?
>>> (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>>> the mass of spam.)
>> I don't know whether DIG has considered registration, but perhaps he
>> should.
>
>
Cannuck.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by r norman
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net>:
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:09:39 -0800, John Harshman
><jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>>titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>>post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>>in the future?
>>
>>(Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>>the mass of spam.)
>
>Strange. I never saw the attack with my news server
> news20.forteinc.com.
>This is the server that rejected my posting a message containing a URL
>it thought was a spam generator.
Maybe that's why I never saw it either; I use supernews.
>I have now checked using a different server
> newsgroups.comcast.net
>and the attack showed up, as of course it did using Google groups.
>
>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:09:39 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>>
>>
>>>Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>>>titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>>>post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>>>in the future?
>>>
>>>(Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>>>the mass of spam.)
>>
>>
>> I never saw it. Did DIG clean it out soon after it appeared?
>
>I don't think he would have any way of doing that, and if he did I would
>have no way of knowing it had happened. Once the post has passed through
>the moderator bot it propagates to news servers on its own. It appears
>that some servers have the ability to notice and reject at least some
>kinds of forged message IDs, and perhaps your server is one.
That seems to be the case; I'm not the only one who never
saw any indication of it.
> Or perhaps
>propagation is slow by whatever path.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank"
<lfl...@yahoo.com>:
>On Dec 11, 5:34 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> alt.atheism is commited to anarchism,
>
>
>Hear, hear. (waves the black flag and sings . . . uh . . .
>sings . . . heck, do anarchists even HAVE an anthem . . .?)
>
>;)
I think it starts "Fifteen men on a dead man's chest..."
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by michael <yos...@hotmail.com>:
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:14:58 -0500, michael <yos...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:07:02 -0600, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:55:12 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
>>>James Goetz <james...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>><486cac05-dc8e-4e5f...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>On Dec 11, 5:24 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
>>>><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:MUD7j.5589$fl7....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
>>>>> > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to the
>>>>> > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be prevented
>>>>> > in the future?
>>>>>
>>>>> > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out from
>>>>> > the mass of spam.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the term for this sort of attack is "sporge". All it takes is a
>>>>> netloon or pimply 14 yearold who just wants to be a nuisance. However, I
>>>>> found this on another newsgroup being bugged by this. Apparently the
>>>>> sporger is using a made-up message ID and maybe our moderator can use this
>>>>> fact to filter it out. The usual real message ID is much longer than 8
>>>>> characters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps DIG can filter out this attack, for now anyways, using what I saw
>>>>> elsewhere on another newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>We have to be careful with how we talk about it. DIG is tempormental.
>>>>He never likes it if somebody publicly suggest banning a newsgroup
>>>>abuser.
>>>
>>>The problem is that this clown creates a new email address each time. I
>>>don't think that DIG wants to ban all roadrunner users, though he might
>>>filter them, too.
>>
>>No, these are pirated accounts, sent through a computer program
>>written to do specifically this ...
>
>So first they practiced on the astronomy group, saw it
>worked, hacked your server first, then sent it here,
>their real target; I guess my friends wanted to say
>hi to your little corner of the net ...
Your friends are jerks. I suppose you approve?
Cory Albrecht
Yes, come North to beautiful Soviet Canuckistan and partake in our
sociable medicine. Leap from tree to tree as they float down the mighty
rivers of British Saskatchalbertoba. Travel from cost to coast via the
Canadian Nationalist Railway. Be amazed by the depths the Bay of Fundies
reaches at it's lowest ebb. Watch in amazement as our politicians
fuddle-duddle through sessions of parliament. Interested in tourist
opportunities in the Great White North? 1-800-O-Canada.
Robert Carnegie
> On Dec 12, 5:46 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 12:52 am, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There are more obstacles, if it could be called that, to posting that
> > > registering with a group or website. I don't see it as any big deal,
> > > since I am registered up the ying yang on many sites. Do it once, only
> > > takes a minute. I see it as a much better alternative to fnording, and
> > > that appears to have failed to prevent the only real disruption I've
> > > ever seen on t.o. And since DIG began to employ the fnord policy
> > > recently, starting with okaying posters manually, it appears either to
> > > not be effective or DIG has halted the policy. I lost a couple posts
> > > before DIG okayed me, and I haven't put fnord into any posts except
> > > this one. The latest spam flood posts did not have fnord in the
> > > message body or headers.
> >
> > posting by other means.
>
> Yes, it slipped my mind. But it seems logical to me to require it for
> all if at all, not just google gus's.
> And DIG's interim "manual" approvals seem to be similar to and have
> the same benefit as what I am suggesting, to force registration.,
> except to make it automatic initially takes it out of DIG's hands.
Interesting view. When it was discussed, approximately last /week/,
and then implemented, opinion was divided between "requiring a
shibboleth for first admittance from Google Groups is the jackboot of
a police state upon free speech" and "those Google users deserve
whatever we do to them for not running a real newsreader." To hit the
rest of the membership with it as well so soon after starting the
thing would be... funny. Ha ha.
> > The remark about posting regardless of moderation is troubling.
>
> You lost me. I made no such remark I can see. Perhaps you're referring
> to another's remarks.
I think so, yes. It was arresting.
George
"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b48643df-f216-4c69...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I am aware of all of these attacks. I wish the powers that be at
usenet would/could so something about it. That's not likely to happen,
though.
George
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f22d3dec-8195-4241...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 2:28 pm, Homer Sapiens <ej.spa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 5:20 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 11, 3:09 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > Wow, what was that? A bit more than 500 new threads with nonsensical
> > > > titles, nonsensical content, and silly poster nyms, all unique to
the
> > > > post. Who? Why? Did he attack other groups too? And can it be
prevented
> > > > in the future?
> >
> > > > (Excuse the ALL CAPS, but I wanted something that would stand out
from
> > > > the mass of spam.)
> >
> > > I don't know whether DIG has considered registration, but perhaps he
> > > should.
> >
> > There sould be someway to prevent this from happening. There are
> > aspects of this I find very troubling.
>
> be all right and defeat any lasting effects.
>
Ah, but your garbage is too tempting a target...
> Ray
>
Cory Albrecht
> Yes, I am aware of all of these attacks. I wish the powers that be at
> usenet would/could so something about it. That's not likely to happen,
> though.
Unfortunately there is no "at usenet" (i.e. a single, specific
place/organization) for there to be a "powers that be" as you apparently
think.
Usenet is a network of independent servers who decide to pass on
messages using a specific protocol. Each server admin decides for
themselves what newsgroups they will carry and pas on, whether or not to
follow through on cancel requests from other servers, whether or not to
prevent cross-posting by its users, what kinds of restrictions to place
upon their users, whether or not to punish their users when others
complains, etc...
There is no central authority for Usenet, similar to how there is no
central authority for the Internet. The most one can hope for is that
when a specific Usenet server admin refuses to deal with
sporge/spam/crap originating from their server that anybody they connect
to will will terminate their links.