author: WindsorFox

text:
James W Anderson wrote:

    Google will not even accept Spamcop reports about them.


author: E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists

subject: Re: Google Docs pages set up for spamming, an example.

text:
Son of Serpent Esq wrote:

Really?
 Lots of users
 Likley implement per user auto whitelisting of some kind
  matching user's outbound messages
 Likely implement some kind of greylisting
 Likely implement something like DCC / Razor /// Bayes, ...
 Likely have their own URIbl & DNSbl
 Likely have their own SpamTraps & Honeypots
 Perhaps use external DNSbls & / or URIbls
   {I think the CBL at least, is the most likely.}
 Likely have tons of other content filters, based on their
  experience of what gets past the above
 ...

A lot of places have managed to nail spam down.

AFAICT it is NOT "quite the magical trick";
                   Rather, it is just work.

Duh.

 {Well there is a really small fraction of a % that is about
   harassment of some kind or another, rather than $.}


author: Paul

text:
Son of Serpent Esq <[email]> wrote in
news:go4neq$b5d$[email]:


text:
"Thane" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Are y'all gettin paid to do Googles work? Seems to me Googles profits are
pretty handsome, maybe it's all the volunteer work they get.


author: Anony Mouse

text:
Son of Serpent Esq wrote:
In a recent press statement google has vowed to do better.

http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3794881/

I have recently sent several links to pill sites on google to Cerf.

His response was quite blunt.

"peter, have you any idea how many transactions this team has to process
daily?"

To me this indicates google can not stop spammers targeting google as
they just do not have the resources.

Add to this the fact this site has not been closed even though it was
reported around the 13th Feb.

http://groups.google.com/group/flexdkfvmhjs

One would infer from this that will not and can not are pretty much the
same thing.


author: SneakyP

text:
Anony Mouse <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

One would actually wonder if they're going through each and every
instance of group names issued as individual complaints instead of
automagically deleting every instance (/variablegarbagelink) that has the
same content.

If they are looking at each submission, then yes - I can see where it'd
take all their resources.  Someone should send in a hint.


text:
bar0 wrote:
Good point... Probably similar merit to my argument that larting and
closing domains only adds to the profit of registrars.

The whole argument of who profits from spam needs to be looked at...


author: Scott Dorsey

text:
Anony Mouse  <[email]> wrote:

No.  Here's the thing: it is very expensive in terms of time and resources
to stop spammers after the fact.  It is much cheaper to prevent spammers
from using your services in the first place.

Many of the google services appear to be designed to make spamming easier.
They have design flaws in that they were clearly designed without attention
to preventing spam.

In addition we have the serious problem of Usenet spam; Google appears
not to care very much about Google Groups and about Usenet, and it shows
very well in their customer support there.

Mr. Cerf is certainly right that there are a huge number of tickets
coming into the abuse desk, and that they deal with them as quickly
as they can.  The solution is to prevent the tickets from arriving
in the first place, by doing things that make it difficult for spammers
to use the service.  If you want some suggestions in that regard, you
can ask me... but by the time anything gets to the abuse desk it's too
late.  You need to deal with the barn door before the cows get out,
not after.
--scott


text:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

After "the cows get out", it is time to research how / why the cows got out,
 and prevent similar occurrences from happening in the future.


author: Rev. Beergoggles

text:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

Just my FUSSP. :)

How about bumping content up against URIBL?  That could at least flag
suspected spam activity.

If your so inclined you could also pull any URLs IP and compare that
against a known list of spammer strongholds.

Take for example,

documents.google.com/a/eneobim.com/View.aspx?id56=v5k5s916u2ol&id-kidkaa=hpfhnqod&docid=d2mgt5q_3cb6gc6gh&mid=6fnjbbg

Which contains a link to:
crossreap.com using IP [121.127.80.155]

This site uses a known spammer DNS of KISSABLEFIRM.COM

Other sites that use the same DNS
crossreap.com
factsupreme.com
honesteffective.com
hopevaried.com
hugediscerning.com
kissablefirm.com
magicsilent.com
maintraditional.com
preciousfresh.com
seekerwait.com
toolprestige.com
cheerfultoo.com
deliciousdelightful.com
discerningfulfilled.com
imaginativeacknowledging.com
includevital.com
independencerefined.com
newluscious.com
possibleresigned.com
questioningtotally.com
stunningrenowned.com

Other sites that use the same IP
http://www.bfk.de/bfk_dnslogger.html?query=121.127.80.155#result

Long story short, 121.127.80.155 is a fsking sewer that should
be nuked from orbit.

A quick check of SpamHaus indicates it has zero value.
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL72950
That's the whole /20 so you know it had to be a serious problem.

They could simply scan the database and discover how many of
these they have.  Once the spammer notices that the takedown
is < 1 hour or so they will likely find a more vulnerable target.


text:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Greetings Scott

I have been talking to Mr Cerf for many years (Anti spam focus). All I
can say is I have said "I told you so" to him so many times before it is
not funny.

Like so many in top positions it is hard to see that they actually listen.


text:
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists wrote:
And what is in the past should stay in the past...
Lets move on...

Next week out go the cows again...

Don't you just love the solution technology offers to the problem of spam.

I have always likened it to putting a band aid on a weeping infected wound.


text:
Anony Mouse wrote:

          (__) .oO(The barn door was open)
          (Oo)
   /-------\/
  / |     ||
 *  ||----||
    ^^    ^^

          (__) .oO(The barn door _was_ open)
          (Oo)
   /-------\/
  / |     ||
 *  ||----||
    ^^    ^^

          (__) .oO(The barn door is still open)
          (Oo)
   /-------\/
  / |     ||
 *  ||----||
    ^^    ^^

          (__) .oO(Revolving doors are a nice touch)
          (Oo)
   /-------\/
  / |     ||
 *  ||----||
    ^^    ^^

          (__) .oO(Or asking a cow for advice)
          (Oo)
   /-------\/
  / |     ||
 *  ||----||
    ^^    ^^


text:
Rev. Beergoggles wrote:
Mooo to you from the land with more cows than people...

http://www.beef.org.nz/statistics/sld0011.asp


author: [redacted]

subject: archiving expired articles in INN 1.4

text:
If this has been discussed here before, please forgive me. I've only
been reading this newsgroup for about a month. I have taken over the
sysadmin dutes at my site on January 4, 1994. I installed INN last week
(from C News to INN 1.4). Under the old C News, we archived most of our
local newsgroups. I would like to continue to archive local newsgroup
articles. I have read Appendix II. Section 1. of the installation
manual. I don't want to mix C News software with INN software, so I
don't want to replace portions of INN with C News just for archiving
purposes. I believe that the C News software archived the articles as
they expired. I don't care if articles are archived as they arrive on
the news server or as they expire.

What options do I have in INN for archiving local newsgroups?
1) Is archiving possible? As they arrive or as they expire?
2) Can I control which local newsgroups are archived?

Any help would be appreciated. Any cookbook examples would also help.

 ------------
 Rod Eldridge   |   Iowa State University   |   [email]
                       (515) 294-7498             [email]


author: Rich Salz

subject: Re: archiving expired articles in INN 1.4

text:
In <2hmomh$[email]> [email] writes:

See doc/archive.8.  You could also put "never:never:never" in your
expire.ctl file.

A cookbook newsfeeds entry:
    # Feed all moderated source postings to an archiver
    source-archive!:!*,*sources*,!*wanted*,!*.d\
       :Tc,Wn:/usr/local/bin/archive -f -i /usr/spool/news.archive/INDEX


author: Ralph Sobek

text:
r$> A cookbook newsfeeds entry:
r$>     # Feed all moderated source postings to an archiver
r$>     source-archive!:!*,*sources*,!*wanted*,!*.d\
r$>        :Tc,Wn:/usr/local/bin/archive -f -i /usr/spool/news.archive/INDEX

This looks a lot like my setup, only I use the `-m' option:

source-archive\
        :!*,*.sources*,comp.binaries.*,gnu.emacs.gnus,info.firewalls-digest,!*wanted*,!*.d,comp.sources.d\
        :Tc,Wn\
        :/usr/local/news/bin/archive -f -i /local/news.archive/INDEX -m

I have already asked the following question, but I never saw an answer (maybe
black holes exist on earth).  The `-i' option is used but the INDEX file
/local/news.archive/INDEX remains of zero length.  Archive writes successfully
in the archive directory (/var/spool/news/news.archive) but is unable to add
anything to theINDEX file.  Any suggestions?  By the way
/var/spool/news/news.archive is a symbolic link to /local/news.archive.

Thanks,


author: jc

subject: Re: A news.groups Survival Guide [DRAFT] [2a/2]

text:
In article <[email]>, "Philip 'Yes, that's
my address' Newton" <[email]> wrote:

"Group brain washing committee", not group advice.

There is inherent conflict of interest here.

The members of "group advice" "committee" can issue
control messages and are interested in promoting certain
things in order to create self significance and justification
for their own existences on usenet.

They, by definition, can not be impratial.

                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Zig heil!


author: Alan Connor

subject: Re: Rom (was: Re: What's better than Google Groups?)

text:
On news[DOT]software[DOT]readers, in <[email]>, "Elizabeth Hodges" wrote:

"@" switched for [AT] and "." switched for [DOT] in
above headers.

<body not downloaded>

This person is using the "X-No-Archive: yes" header.
This header causes groups.google.com to delete the
post from the Usenet Archives in a week or so.

This header is used almost exclusively by trolls that
are hiding their tracks.

If someone doesn't think that their posts are valuable
enough to archive, then why would anyone think they
are valuable enough to read? Who would take the advice
of someone who can deny that they ever posted it in week
or so?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+                                               +
+ TROLLS: Ignorant, motor-mouthed, and cowardly +
+ punks (often mentally ill) that run around    +
+ the Usenet posting (usually abusive) garbage  +
+ under multiple aliases. Usenet vermin.        +
+                                               +
+                                               +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Alan


author: Lo Scorpion Rosso

text:
Alan Connor scriva:

Google makes billions of dollars selling advertising. In order to do
that, they need to have lots of people coming to their site to be
exposed to those ads. In order to entice people to come there, Google
offers various services, including the Usenet archive. Now, the Google
folks are basically nice people, so they have provided a means for
people who don't feel that Google should be profitting from their
posts, at least not without compensating the authors, to keep them out
of the archive. BUT, because they really do want all of the posts they
can get, they have a cadre of little sockpuppets like Alan that go
around trying to convince people that using the "X-No-Archive: yes"
header, that Google, via their Deja purchase basically "owns", is
somehow an evil thing to do, so that Google can make more advertising
money. And the really cool part of it is that they have little Alan so
convinced that he's doing something good and useful for mankind, that
he does it for free! While Google continues to rake in those billions
of dollars.

Despite what sockpuppets like Alan may think, Google has no
inalienable right to profit from our posts.


author: Howard Brazee

text:
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 14:56:39 +0000 (UTC), Lo Scorpion Rosso
<[email]> wrote:

None of us do.   But you posted them anyway as long as we don't want
to look them up later.

If you're paranoid, you can wonder if someone has saved your messages
anyway - even if they are not easily available to the masses (is it
the masses you don't want reading your messages in the future?)


author: confucious

subject: xnews ini files

text:
i see references both here and in luu trans writings to xnews ini files
that i don't have like [compose] and [popups]all i have are:
id
display
misc
opened
metrics
where are the other ini files?
is there a patch or plugin to d/l?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


author: Dominik R.

subject: Re: xnews ini files

text:
[email] (confucious) wrote in
<3a7f1e97$[email]>:

You find those entries in the manual and/or in the changes.txt.
You may have to add them yourself...


subject: Re: xnews ini files

text:
[email] (Dominik R.) wrote in
<Xns9040128C4A395gigdrbluewinde@63.209.170.206>:

the manual and the various txt files seem to imply that those sections
should already be there-anybody have them?can i just copy/paste them in?


author: Dante Soch

subject: Re: Moderator Policy for proposed soc.men.moderated

text:
Bob Officer typed for 28 minutes and produced:

Sharon conceded that you expressed your opinion.  I view this as implicit
acknowledgment that those working to impede soc.men.moderated are basing
their efforts on prejudice.

You can say that all you want.  For purposes of suiting your metaphore, I
will drag the corpse over the finish line.  I assure you that I am every
bit as dedicated to seeing soc.men.moderated created as you are to impeding
it, soc.men.moderated will be newgrouped.


author: Rasta Khan

text:
Dante Soch <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

Indeed it will.

Stay t00ned!


author: Sharon B

text:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 02:44:32 GMT, Dante Soch <[email]>
wrote in <[email]>:

<boggle>

Here's a commentary to advance your cause, guess I was just too
subtle:

The Stealth Proponents should unsock so the soc.regs won't have to
entertain a "culture of fear and paranoia."


author: Bob Tiptrie

subject: Re: A better spam filter Re: Senate Spam Bill Proposes Filters, Not Bans

text:
Andrew Gierth <[email]> writes:

I get very little legitimate e-mail except those with whom I have
regular exchanges.  I get, on the other hand, much more spam than
regular mail -- and have accidentally lost e-mail while deleting
the spam.  For those in this situation, the proposed system ought
to work well.

Andrew does a good point though: to be as transparent as possible
the system should automatically include those to whom e-mail is
sent.  I will propose that here.  This will make it invisible to
the "Mr. Answer-Men" of the net.


author: Lord Samuel

subject: Re: StinkFish emasculated again, can't stop spewing his fascist hate ...

text:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 01:41:18 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ï¿½" <[email]>
wrote:

Nope, still in effect.

And still in effect.

Apathy rules.

Old charter still in effect.

I think it's time to call for another change in co.config.

Only on co.ads.

Nope, an historical abuse by YOU pox.

What makes you think that's his only email address?

You might try using that cynical brain for a change, you Godless sack
of crap.


author: Wbfrcu Onegyb

subject: Vox Populi is full of cat dung

text:
On 14 Apr 2004, "=> Vox Populi ï¿½" <[email]> posted some
news:dpefc.104$[email]:

slaughtered
chickenhawk

Ibk gur cbk vf ba gur ybbfr.  Lbh gel gung fuvg va ar.jrngure naq lhb'yy
trg lbhe nmm xvpxrq chff oenva.

Wbfrcu Onegyb


text:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:20:01 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ï¿½" <[email]>
wrote:

10 days, maybe 50 KIA?

You ain't got the stones to say that in person.


author: ** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **

text:
Lord Samuel wrote:

Awww Stinky, we've been through that before, and you
chickened out like the spineless weasel you are. You no-showed
at the Fox theatre ...


text:
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 23:42:23 -0600, "** Bu$h's Porch Monkey **"
<[email]> wrote:

You know where to find me pox, you want some spinal crenellations go
for it.


text:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:51:48 -0600, "=> Vox Populi ï¿½" <[email]>
wrote:

Don't have to.

Only to scrape you into a bag.


subject: Totalitarian censor Andrew Giert is collaborating with fascist David Kinny       2345675148

text:
Comp.ai is not a personal property of David Kinny,
the censor and self admitted fascist, asserting a superiority
of his own race over Russian and creating black lists
and white lists.

It used to be a group for uncensored public discussions
until he conducted a campaign behind the scenes
to take over the entire comp.ai hierarcy and fabricated
hundreds of votes. None of these "voters" participated
in that group ever since.

The usenet power elite refused to act opon this ugly
takeover and ignored all the facts of the matter,
including the specific quotes by David Kinny himself.

David Lawrence, aka tale has this rule:

YEE SHALT NEVER EVER EVEN CONCEIVE THE IDEA
OF TOPPLING A SITTING DICTATOR, AKA "MODERATOR".

Russ Allbery, aka The Godfather Of Brainwashing
wrote all sorts of excuses to sabotage the news group
creation process.

These perverts and the new totalitarian clique
are only interested in thought control, oppression
and domination and not FACILITATION of discussions
on usenet.

They are power hungry megalomaniacs and totalitarian
dictator wannabes, right this very moment inventing
a new set of delusions they call the "survival guidelines".

What is this, some kind of a warfare here on usenet,
or just a place to excersize you RIGHT to express
your ideas as provided by the Basic Human Rights
conventions, such as Freedom of Speech and
Freedom of Association, and Freedom to Choose Ones
Own Convictions.

Stop this horrendous abuse and return this group
to uncensored state as it was before this takeover.

Andrew Gierth ([email]) is a censor,
mass cancelling valid articles in bulk, supporting this
totalitarianism and engaging in massive destruciton
of the articles.

He is one of the most arrogant self-appointed perverts,
destoying everything he likes while pretending to be
a protector of usenet.

The same self-appointer information terrorist
as Howard Knight, Chris Lewis, Cosmo Roadkill
and others as evidenced on control.cancel group.

These people and totalitarian clique of self-appointed
usenet rulers are the biggest problem on usenet,
suffocating it to death.

They say "if you can cancel, so can I".

Eelfrrum yagl ssnae mos pfheu aehu oeasnca nriw tedso lpkse
pthhs ipoda idc aocaa eoro bln o ta oe mae rtfai
ohi mciasf echia a ssncmo nireh isi gvai y my i iy
eduw csx igl eteti rer ttn rehr uiftr dor ti
tnsx atiotem ete etilent ere eleinc twnal srle rlfa nrio
aoro oeu ono anno ieto aeye yit y dfe
oatons ded y ielfnnnnl eadpo mycfreton pyod sofar eece i nfntosfdu reag
tr ontri rse ss esae isnon ctk!

Kfatd dog ere aap iaon ofi faa tct yicgr
teswgon evod xsan rt ctbrni sabfgde sl
yoten auhtrt tgo esheltb nhofe op o edfpeo ieb edrr hmah
clf el a es iomfee o spnaysctn eht yeeeeods le
li fsr eincnmef sno nef lwia spnrnc yre sosi?

Klchi iine amaet oegn gus erlta ricor nteos sgeep mmie
auesna iet nop acsdhr iur ehs ahipuf nnti aet rnook
aeorn ns y alaasi tiyqi hm gqbe thphee hci
bs atioaue oleeeepoa an rwev hpc rdn i fallods ava lav
odon ptor snri dpew gemn otde rvs ere eni pwf
rmrt su irejaet pr eeegon rsiara mvl yteoag isa?


author: Jay Levitt

subject: Anyone got a gmail account?  I need reputation help

text:
Somehow, I have fallen into Google/Postini's reputation black hole.

I send a very, very low volume of mail from jay.fm, on account of I'm one
person and I don't run any lists and most of my friends don't even use
GMail.

Well, when you send a low volume of mail, and one of your messages somehow
gets caught in some filter, you now have a non-zero percentage of
spamminess.

Which means that your next message is slightly more likely to show up in
the junk filter.  Which means the recipient doesn't see it, because whoever
checks their spam folder?  Which means that Google counts it as spam...
which makes you look slightly spammier.

Rinse and repeat.

Yes, it's true: Google and Postini's filters FEED INTO THEMSELVES.

Now, we did a lot of dumb things at AOL back in the day.  But I don't
think, on our worst day, we ever did anything as stupid as that.
(Nevertheless, nominations will be accepted until January 20, 2008.  Oops!
Too late.)

So: The way out is the way in, backwards.  If anyone has a Gmail account,
and would like to mark me as "not spam", please send an e-mail to
[email], I'll reply from my unadorned address (so Google's
address book won't recognize me), and I'll thank you and owe you a beer
someday.


author: Dave Lugo

subject: Re: Anyone got a gmail account?  I need reputation help

text:
Jay Levitt wrote:

Oops!  (sorry, can't help with that)

Hope you're doing well otherwise! :)


author: WindsorFox-{SS}-

text:
Jay Levitt wrote:

   In coming. You could also do the above reply at gmail instead of Cox.


author: [redacted]

text:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:59:01 -0500, Jay Levitt <[email]>
wrote:

Hey Jay!

LTNS

Incoming ;-)


author: E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists

text:
Jay Levitt wrote:

Err, what is stopping your from just creating a gmail mail
 account for yourself (or a hundred of them for that matter)?
  {If their repudiation scheme really is that easy to push around.}


text:
Jay Levitt <[email]> wrote:

Yes. If the end-users report mail as spam, the filters consider similar
mail incrementally more spammy. If end-users look in their spam folders
and discover mail they want being erroneously called spam, and mark it
not-spam, the filters consider similar mail incrementally less spammy.

That makes sense. You put the decision in the hands of the end-users.

Yes, ignoring your users opinions would certainly be dumb.

AOL, having made many improvements, does that now as well.

Here's something you obviously haven't figured out yet: most ISPs are
ALSO aware that people will try to game the system - the most obvious
case would be people sending a lot of spam, but trying to get people to
click 'this is not spam' on it. There's ways to detect THAT as well.
You're not going to be able to spoof your way through most major ISPs'
filters for very long.


text:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:40:50 -0500, Dave Lugo wrote:

Yeah, but (and this will kill you) I just got the S6 detailed last week...
and before that, I hadn't washed it in two years...


text:
BlackLists <[email]> wrote:

You seem to be operating under the misguided impression that you're
smarter than both every spammer AND everyone who has ever designed a
large-provider spamfilter. You're sorely mistaken.


text:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:04:51 -0600, [email] wrote:

The problem is that this makes an accidental butterfly effect all but
inevitable.

In my case, what probably happened was:

1. I moved six months ago, and thus got a new static IP from Comcast
2. That IP may have once-upon-a-time belonged to someone who had a
compromised computer, or something, or something else
3. So the first message I sent to gmail may have been "tainted"
4. And the recipient didn't look in their spam folder, and I never noticed
that the mail got lost, so it stayed marked as spam
5. Therefore, I became spammier
6. GOTO 3

A self-reinforcing filter is a bad idea if there are external inputs that
may be wrong.  It's similar to the problems you see with recommendation
engines; there's a name for it but I forget.

I feel comfortable saying that I'm aware of what major ISPs are aware of.

I don't need to "spoof my way" through filters "for very long"; I need to
dig myself out of a hole that I didn't know I was in.  From evidence I've
seen in the past 24 hours, it worked. (Thanks to all who volunteered.)

Since I don't actually send spam, or even bulk mail of any kind, I don't
think I'll end up back in the filters (at least till Monday, when I move
and get a new, probably-tainted IP all over again).


text:
a report on the cases
from the Attorney General, the committing magistrate and the Crown
Solicitor, and

    "I regret to inform you that ... I do not see my way to directing
    the prosecutions of the two persons indicated by you; first ...
    because I do not agree with you in looking upon them as the
    principal criminals; and, secondly, because I think that after
    the evidence of these persons has been taken both before the
    committing magistrate and the Supreme Court without any warning
    having been given them that their evidence might be used against
    them, it would appear like a breach of faith to treat them now as
    criminals." "Should the prosecution of these persons result in
    their acquittal, which seems to me not improbable, I fear that the
    good effect produced by the severe reprimand, which I understand
    that your Honor administered publicly to all the parties concerned
    in these two cases, might be to a great extent neutralized." (!)

On September 29th, 1879, the Chief Justice sentenced more criminals
for trafficking in children. A Japanese girl, Sui Ahing, eleven years
old, was brought to the Colony by a Chinaman who had bought the child
in Japan of its parents. Needing money to go on to his native place,
this Chinaman borrowed $50 of a native resident at Hong Kong, and
left the child as security for the debt. The wife of the man in whose
custody the child was left beat the child severely and she ran out of
the house. She was found wandering on the street late at night,
and the finder took her and sold her to another Chinese party, who
threatened to send her to Singapore as a prostitute. It was plain the
last purchaser intended either to send her to Singapore or keep her at
Hong Kong for vile purposes. This case illustrates well the frequency
with which children are sold and re-sold in that country. The parties
to the last transaction, the finder of the c


text:
Jay Levitt wrote:

I've been almost that bad w/ my a4.  (yeah, still have it - almost 9
years old now. K03 went kaput ~3 years ago, now has a k04 ;)


text:
[email] wrote:

I can see I apparently need to start adding <Sarcasm>
 brackets for some people (or be more blatantly sarcastic).

It doesn't seem likely to me their filters should be all
  that easy to push around.

 Which leads me to think there is little point in a random
  wingnut or two from N.A.N-A.E receiving messages from him
  at gmail accounts, and marking them not spam.

 Never the less, if a random wingnut or two from N.A.N-A.E
  with a gmail account can make a difference, in if his low
  volume messages are considered spam by gmail or not, then
  he could push his own repudiation around all by himself
 (with some work).


author: Seth

text:
In article <[email]>, Jay Levitt  <[email]> wrote:

Someone not noticing something in his spambox is at best a very weak
indicator of spamminess, so it shouldn't do much reinforcement.

Get a gmail account, and if you don't get a reply you expect, use that
to email your gmail correspondent and ask him to mark non-spam your
earlier message.

Seth


author: Matthias Leisi

text:
Jay Levitt schrieb:

"Negative feedback (loop)"?

-- Matthias


text:
Jay Levitt <[email]> wrote:

Only at low volumes. That's why some major ISPs won't even make a
whitelisting decision absent some threshhold of mail coming in, at least
a few hundred messages per IP in the space of a week or so.

Individual users may be wrong, but they are predictive in the aggregate.
If most users think your mail is spam, it's probably spam.

That you were apparently unaware that filtering decisions are
user-driven and feed back into themselves casts some doubt on that
statement.

Oh, if only there were a domain-based reputation system, like DKIM.


author: Vernon Schryver

text:
In article <[email]>, Jay Levitt  <[email]> wrote:

That theory does not make sense for several reasons.  One is that it
fails the "I'm really not special test."  That's the syndrome where
where someone explains a problem with a theory that requires that the
problem be unique or at least very rare.  Naive programmers get it when
they have trouble with a trivial bit of code like "hello world" and
conclude that the compiler or computer is broken.  It's what you see
with USENET lusers who have trouble posting their first article and
conclude that this netnews thing does not now and never has worked.

It would be wiser to ask some questions before fixing on such a theory,
such as

  - Am I doing something unusual?  Does this theory require that whatever
    I'm doing be unique?

  - Is it plausible that so few people get tainted IP addressses from
     Comcast that Google has not heard enough complaints to take
     countermeasures?

  - Could the continual churn of Comcast dynamically addresses look
     similar to Google's spam filter?  (In at least some markets,
     Comcast's DHCP system seems to cause reassignments about once every
     6 months to stable systems, judging from some domain names for which
     I provide DNS secondaries.)

  - Can a useful anti-spam reputation system use aging as long as
     6 months as implied by #1 in the theory?

Perhaps Jay Levitt is more unique than the rest of us, but I think the
answers to the other questions are inconsistent with his theory.  I'm
pretty confident about the answer to the last question based on experience
with DCC Reputations.

Like those who claim to be security (or almost any other sort of) expert,
very few who would say that sort of thin out loud can say it accurately.

Note that my skepticism about his theory does not imply that I have an
explanation for what he has observed (as opposed to rank speculations).
Since I'm not claiming to be an expert, I don't have any problem saying
"I don't know."

Vernon Schryver    [email]


text:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:18:08 -0500, Dave Lugo wrote:

Damn.. well, good excuse for the K04... My S4 got stolen, I forgot if I
told you, so that's how I ended up with the (used) S6.. and now I live in
the city, take the T everywhere, and it will last forever!


text:
In article <YvMlj.187$[email]>,
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists  <[email]> wrote:

They are.  I get some stuff from a mailing list I never subscribed to;
it takes gmail about 3 tries before it's always bucketed (then onces
every few months a message escapes).  There's stuff from lists I
subscribe to that looks spammy to them, but after a few "No, this
isn't spam" they put it all in the inbox.

I suspect it's on a per-user basis, though, because the list I never
subscribed to probably has a bunch of people who did.

Seth


author: Charles Lindsey

subject: Re: Anyone got a gmail account? I need reputation help

text:
In <[email]> Matthias Leisi <[email]> writes:

Positive feedback more likely.


text:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:43:58 -0600, [email] wrote:

The problem, of course, is that then you're screwed if you're a low-volume
user.

You are confusing "most users think your mail is spam" with "most users
haven't discovered your mail in their spam folder, and then marked your
mail as not spam".  In essence, you've confused opt-in with opt-out; an
ironic mistake for an experienced anti-spammer.

Oh, if only DKIM would improve my score.  (It didn't.)  Nonetheless, I
agree that it *should* help in the long term.

Actually, I think Google is still looking at DomainKeys, not DKIM, but (a)
that'll change and (b) I set them both up (hey, why not).  SPF too, just
for kicks.


text:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:04:40 +0000 (UTC), Vernon Schryver wrote:

Fair enough; I'm always skeptical when I hear it from others.  And I'm
probably not skeptical enough when I say it myself, because (like everyone)
I think I *am* unique in that I *am* unique...  That said, I did find and
isolate four previously-unreported compiler bugs in a widely-used, age-old,
fault-tolerant operating system in about three weeks last October. :)

I didn't mention the source of my "theory", but it's Google itself: I found
someone who knew someone who looked, and best they could figure, I was
being flagged as spam because I had been flagged as spam.  (90% of jay.fm
was marked as spam by Google.)  They didn't see any particular root cause.

I do imagine that the following set of circumstances is, while not unique,
small enough that it wouldn't be on anybody's radar:

1. A FQDN belonging to one and only one person (jay.fm)
2. That domain being used only for very small volumes of personal e-mail
3. Mail from that domain coming from an outbound server whose canonical
name is in that domain, and not on a shared host or service provider
4. That same mail server being used for an dissimilar domain
(shopwatch.org) in a different TLD
5. That domain also being used only for very small volumes of personal
e-mail
6. That domain having a seemingly unlimited set of local-part addresses (I
use hyphens instead of plus signs to work around everybody's PHP and Perl
quoting bugs, so my local part is always jay-something, not jay+something)
7. That person talking to a large number of GMail accounts for the first
time (I've been going through LinkedIn and reconnecting with a large number
of people I haven't talked to for ten years; they write back on LinkedIn, I
hit reply to the e-mail and now I'm making "first contact" with GMail)

So I can see how this could be happening, not because I'm unique, but
because I'm unusual enough.  Keep in mind, if I didn't have experience in
the arena, I wouldn't even know to post here, let alone use two decades of
contacts to find someone inside the impenetrable wall at Google; I'd think
"wow, e-mail is unreliable" and leave it at that.

See above, and keep in mind that one part of being unusal is being in a
position to actually diagnose the root cause of this; that's a kind of
unusual that everyone here on NANAE is accustomed to being, but it is far
from common.

Yep.  Relatively few people have static IPs from Comcast, period (you have
to get a business account).  Relatively few of those know how to run their
own mail server.  Relatively few of those are using it for personal use, so
their volumes are tiny enough to run into this.

I have a static IP.

My theory doesn't require a six-month memory, though; if it was a 30-day
window, and my first e-mail to GMail was marked as spam and "lost", that's
enough to start this process going.  Then all it takes is a second e-mail
within 30 days to be marked spam and "lost" to keep it going.

And yet you happen to know that I can, and so can you.

Fair enough; I would never demand that a refutation of my theory include a
better theory.

But, more to the point, I don't actually require a refutation of my theory
at all.  Even if it was totally wrong, it seemed to have been a useful
enough metaphor that the solution recommended by the theory was also the
solution that solved the problem.  Two e-mails from virgin addresses at
jay.fm and shopwatch.org both made it through to my test GMail account's
inbox - and that GMail account had never even seen shopwatch.org before.

So I don't actually care if I was right or not.


text:
Jay Levitt <[email]> wrote:

That seems like a comparatively easy problem to solve.

Your users have to opt-in a second time, in their filter. That's hardly
a bad thing. In fact, it creates a clearer dividing line between spam
and wanted mail, pushing the stuff where the user thinks "I'm not sure
if this is spam or not" further towards the 'spam' side, and forcing
email senders to have enough relevance in their content that users
look for it and mark it 'not spam' when it's inaccurately classified.


text:
In article <[email]>, Jay Levitt  <[email]> wrote:

Mail targets, and more especially the computers and human system operators
working on their behalf, cannot distinguish "bulk mail" from "personal
mail" except perhaps by per-user whitelists.  "No-bite-at-the-apple behavior"
must be applied to all or email from strangers (not in a whitelist) or none.

In article <[email]>, Jay Levitt  <[email]> wrote:

Factoring out likely irrelevancies, that is not as common as mail from
Microsoft or Earthlink users, but is seems quite common to me.  It is
might be almost as common as mail from Microsoft or Earthlink as seen
by the people who really matter in this context, the professionals
building and maintaining major spam filters.  Such people are both more
likely than typical users to send mail that fits that profile and to
receive mail from others who also fit that profile.

That distinction is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

When I find compiler or operating system bugs, I am a lot more likely
to be able to diagnose, generate a tight test case, and sometimes even
fix the bug than most people.  However, that is irrelevant for the "Am
I special?" sanity test.  Only whether my code is doing something really
unusual counts, not whether I can figure out what's going on.

I think it really is a "sanity test" and that it is not a sign of
mental health to assume reflexively that what one is doing is unique.

I intentionally wrote "get tainted IP addressses from Comcast" without
saying anything about "static."

That is relevant only if Google can know and care enough to find out
whether a given IP address is whatever Comcast or a Comcast user might
consider "static." As I tried to point out, as far as outsiders including
Google are concerned, plenty of Comcast's nominally "dynamic" IP addresses
are as unchanging as Jay Levitt's nominally "static" IP address.

Even 30 days is not without problems.  It is the aging rate of DCC
Reptuations.

On the contrary, no one I've heard of can talk about "what major ISPs
are aware of" today accurately.  One can talk about what one's employer
and a few other nearby (as measured by marketing distances) ISPs know
about, but the world is (and always has been) too large and varied to
make such claims.

Worse, the biggest ISPs are now such large outfits that it is nonense
to talk about what even a single ISP is "aware of".  It's like the
advice to Horatio about his (or anyone's) inevitably provincial
philosophy but more so.  Even an insider at a Google or Earthlink
cannot really talk about what Google or Earthink is aware of.

That sounds half reasonable and half crazy.  Wrong theories can
yield bad results, especially when their adherents are crazy and
don't care whether they are valid.

I assume the solution recommended by the theory is this from article
<[email]>:

]So: The way out is the way in, backwards.  If anyone has a Gmail account,
]and would like to mark me as "not spam", please send an e-mail to
][email], I'll reply from my unadorned address (so Google's
]address book won't recognize me), and I'll thank you and owe you a beer

The theory behind in that seems to assume the existence of a unified,
global Google address book that can be affected by a small handful of
"spam" and "not-spam" reports.  Others have pointed out some reasons
why that is quite implausible.  I think a simpler theory is more likely.
It does not involve tainted IP addresses or a global Google address
book.  It doesn't even involve reputation aging or dastardly feedback
loops.

The simpler theory is
  1. As he says, Jay Levitt sends only a little mail to only a few Google
      users.
  2. He sent them one or more of them a message from an unfamiliar SMTP
     envelope Mail_from value (i.e. not in the individual users' private
     whitelists or address books) that looked dubious to Google's
     global filters and so was dumped into those user's bulk filters.
  3. Or those few users hit SPAM buttons accidentally, and so created
     individual, private, per-user blacklist or scoring values.
  4. None of the targets of his mail cared enough to check their "bulk
     folders" and so missed it.

I think that sort of thing can happen with people running their own
SMTP servers and the spam filtering built into Thunderbird.

#2 is stuff that often happens.  Last week I sent a message consisting
of a dozen words and a .rtf attachment of expensive legal blather to
someone at a spam filter vendor that brags about a better than 99%
accuracy and that industry tests put it at better than 99.99%.  His
filters looked inside the .rtf attachment and came up with a fatally
pink score.  He found my message only because he was waiting for it and
checked his "spam folder."

Vernon Schryver    [email]

P.S.  Concerning the current price for legal blather, I was recently
surprised to find that the going rate for simple work is at least
$550/hour out in the hinterland and not just in Silly Valley.  Never
mind the number of billable/billed hours required to "prepare for phone
call" and so forth for what I assume is quite simple, common, and
ordinary stuff.


text:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:30:46 -0600, [email] wrote:

Maybe you've missed the part where I'm not a business or a bulk mailer or
even someone running a mailing list.

I don't have "users".  I have friends, and acquaintances, and colleagues.

My friends are not continually on the lookout for e-mails from me.  We chat
by phone, we chat by IM, we chat by e-mail.  Sometimes we don't talk for a
month and then we do.  And, especially lately, where I've been getting in
touch with old acquaintances via LinkedIn and Facebook, sometimes we
haven't e-mailed before at their GMail address.

It's not the kind of thing that they'd notice "Hey, it's Monday, and I
didn't get my weekly e-mail from Jay.  He provides compelling content and
value-add; I'd better check my spam folder."  They just assume I didn't
write, or I didn't answer.

And you reversed the opt-in metaphor.  My problem (which, again, appears to
be solved) was that *I* essentially had to get everyone I knew to opt in to
receive my e-mails at all - and I had to do that via a channel other than
e-mail, because they could not see my e-mail unless they looked in a folder
explicitly reserved for e-mail that they probably don't care about.  This
wasn't a confirmation problem; it was a first-contact problem.

Now, that behavior is both intentional and desired for bulk mail.  It is
exactly the same complaint that spammers make when we tell them "No, you
cannot have one bite at the apple."  And they whine, "Well, then how can I
possibly reach these people to get them to opt in?"  And we say "Not our
problem, but you might try marketing."  And we're right.

The crux of the problem is that the very desirable, no-bite-at-the-apple
behavior we create for bulk mail has side effects for personal mail, where
the dynamics are different.


author: FreeSpeechStore

subject: Darrell A. Larose, Known Internet Abuser, Troll, & Unprofessional Ottawa Photographer Now Blocked By Major ISP's!

text:
http://freespeechstore.com/public/Sub_Public10/3567_Darrell%20A.%20Larose%20Known%20Internet%20Abuser%20Troll%20%20Unprofessional%20Ottawa%20Photographer%20Now%20Blocked%20By%20Major%20ISPs!.htm

keywords...
forgery cop richard rr harman security regional time warner illegal
unacceptable defamation kirch andrew bruns roadrunner ex-convict brian
defame sosdg ahbl.org felon sosdg.org ahbl 2mbit.com Bestiality trelane
[email] speakeasy man Blasphemy puke SPCA tax
dog-sodomizing usps Contingent alt.ecommerce [email]
[email] Liabilities [email] canadapost.ca
district criminal 449 crimes judge QC postal Capitol solicitation
819-684-3482 Wilfrid-Lavigne Boul 6P1 PQ J9H Lavigne Aylmer Aylmer
Christ 819-682-3500 Wilfrid Anglican Cinemas Square Bd Darcy Church
Toniata Trinity Wright Elizabeth brockville PWHS 203 Queen Gatineau
High McGee Philemon School P.O. 819-684-5760 Road Quebec 514
613-860-1689 d'Aylmer chemin Road misc.invest.stocks
alt.gossip.celebrities news.admin.net-abuse.usenet alt.personals.teen
Paraphilia alt.usenet.kooks sci.physics.relativity alt.www.webmaster
sat.general alt.personals.sex alt.personals.bi misogynist idiot freenet
alt.religion.scientology misc.consumers ott.general Carleton University
[email] misogyny sci.psychology.psychotherapy
Computers http://www.ocdsb.edu.on.ca School loss [email]
french carleton.ca District cs.ubc.ca Ottawa-Carleton DePodesta Board
english http://www.carleton.ca University webnames.ca radiant.net
PayPal British translations forging [email] stephen spam
phishing smith bowden Columbia [email] copyright code
virus scam libel investment death claire extensions forgeries
competency stock provider optus.com.au trademark carleton.ca equity
stockbrokers bowmac.com.au ethics hosegood stocks PRTL address service
invest management isp brokerage sarah tortuous magma ip primus
primustel.ca shares primustel.com authorized abuse virtual jessica
communications wigle policy use principle magma.ca aup marc filth
impact internet peter virtual-impact.ca support Andrew liability
[email] onebigfriggingdude executive Edmund
Chase Ted Singh wigle.ca Leslie Bob [email] Carl Nice
DePodesta Day Hazard John Chislett R. Scase Tracy L. Paul Neil K. F.
Thomas Ali Lawson Kloster Guirgis Hicks Greg Wilson K. Geoffrey Jay B.
Mark Andrew David Hershberg E. Rosenblatt GlobeComm Karp Capital
Yazdanpanah Systems M. Puente John Tailwind Douglas Partners Reid
Pradman Paul private Pizzani equity Kaul G. Hughes G. AIG-sponsored
Network Capital scans Systems scanning PH fund investigation MICROS
probes ruse GNU/Linux hacks Telecommunications P. frontpage intrusions
hacker unix news.admin.net-abuse.email kook alt.usenet.kooks server
subterfuge loser complaints linux Ladyface punks newsgroup punk
internet hacking Consulting Complaints nanae programmer child LLC
filthy language [email] ethical profanity beware Russell
morningmist.org Duskglow lawsuit duskglow.com Miller integrity ethics
professionalism iowa sue rcmp internet 712-546-5886 professional
vengeance court Consulting Le 1557 mounted royal abuse alt.usenet.kooks
hotmail threats canadian Excessive brin kook Mars rcmp
[email] kooks contacts contact sucks Gatineau police
richard bravehost.com bans scoville Multi-Posting harasser Bravenet
page freespeechstore ban harass harassment White Notification NASDAQ
Graham [email] Shworan sapd Dave conference susan
beware 05468667 lingo Negative wife police earnings alert sexual
dimmock report accountant necrophilia [email] whatever...
pornogrophy cyberstalking pervert deviancy cyber cyberstalker slime
troll ott.personals penis deviant hookers stalker
[email] [email] hooker [email]
groups [email] marijuana google Nomen Nescio Womyn
[email] bogus Louise aol false reports

=======================================================================================
Darrell wrote:


author: Fred Tehbot

subject: Re: Translation needed

text:
Darrell, <[email]>, whose name means "researches symptoms of tumors and
serious illnesses then gets symptoms; feels sorry for himself", reviled:

It means:

The sound asleep horse's head imagines a rapacious malt-worm. When you see
the systematically feathery jizz queen, it means that the taxi-driver
glistens. Another cabbage head between a freakface wiggles, but the shitty
slut pokes the impacted tooth until a plonker.

For example, a maggot-pie connotes that a wet-brained waitress disturbs
another chemist about the dunce. A junior-grade dewberry pops, and the
terror-struck fleck begins; however, the git desires a Jehovah's witness.
When a flummery amidst the dwarf is denominatively creeping, the slushy mug
preventingly waggles an onerous frump. The lawyer, some no-necked fish, and
the obsessive flatfish are what made America rotten.

Now and then, a hoof catches the fool throughout a bugbear. For example, a
thundering trollop shows that the bladder bounces the lullingly styptic
ice-cream seller.

Generally the omelette twitters, but the colon via the shoplifter generally
ogles a high voltage head-shrinker. If a manyways malformed flap-dragon
recognises a fop, then a languishingly stilted intestine drinks.

Periodically the celestially repellent moron skips, but the egg-shell around
another greaseball usually aside feels the doddery gasblower. The
gestational, furtive hotelier presumes it to be true that the
sadomasochistic heathen whirls some stinkingly insipid grease ball, but they
should recall that mechanically some cut up poof waits.

A hand job is ofttimes slow. A coal miner's lung begins, then a pubescent
dog's groin tinkles the one-sided halfwit. If the toe-jam catches a tramp,
then a butt reamer wakes.

For example, an ineffective cyst connotes that the overnight deceitful skunk
leaves the flasher. The handbag is brightly neurotic.

The up-chuck-inspiring jolthead perpendicularly ogles a beneath
thoroughgoing fiddlehead. Many times a deceiving horse's arse waits, then a
sub-intellectual pondweed plays. The sugared, schoolgirlish giblet
postulates that some mutilated monkey splashes the gingery genetic disorder,
but they should recall that whereat a rootbound fungal infection pants. The
whispering, stock-still giggler commonly thinks that a bus driver for a
coxcomb pops another winking fat cell, but they should recall that cheerily
another insect faeces glistens.

Furthermore, the g-string twitters, and the picolo player flusters some
slithery baby. Spasmodically a minimus regarding a bottom-feeder dances,
then a herdsman dances. Now and then, a horn-beast rising the bugbear
sacrifices a no-chinned urinary tract.

When you see the egg-shell without a dog's groin, it means that a
quincuncially odious pubic crab snorts. Now and then, another goober
imperturbably wakes the no-brained undertaker.

When you see a beef-witted rampallion, it means that some howler monkey
waddles. For example, a home self-opinionated harpy implies that some goodly
billowing midge separates another classically farcical sheep.

When you see some flap, it means that the sunburned gibbon vaults. The crass
frat house comes, and a felon dances; however, another withdrawn spunk slut
hunts a lengthways hopeless crutch. The stressful, heavy horse fly
postulates that the baggage near a floosie centrally plunders a cyst, but
they need to remember how perhaps a foreskin works.

Spasmodically a poof flutters, but the flap repeatedly flusters the
snub-nosed female internal reproductive organ.

An initially toffee-nosed flea bite offends the flittingly obsessional
penile wart. Not infrequently a snotfuck betwixt a phlegm ball pants, but a
swamp-donkey intermittently nails an onion head before a pubic hair.
Recurrently a reptile respecting a fiddlehead throbs, or a blood-thirsty
hoaxer succeeds.

A wet blanket rising a fruitcake hobbles the strange splotched festered
sore, then the bladder to-day the boar-pig trips the sagely unemployable
floozy. When the fatalistic bedpan attendant is dirtily dressed-up, a
sulfuretted libertine lasting fails a pimple over a dick. When you see the
infection withstand a haggis, it means that a devicefully spurious furry
tongue murmurs.

When you see a halfwit, it means that a hoaxer lingers. The french bean
withstand a chicken-fucker, another phonetically wound up parasite, and the
insurance broker in an engineer are what made America rotten.

A baneful old woman is stagnantly broken-backed. Some gonad while the
cornflake, the sunburnt fowl, and a block of concrete round a ferret are
what made America rotten.

The grumbling, thundering jockstrap commonly concludes that a microcephalic
secretary stops a spider-legged pile of faeces, but they should recall that
ornamentally an ignominiously head-touched toilet cleaner farts.
Furthermore, a slam pig waddles, and a half-clothed hairy tongue tootles the
hellenistically stock-still dogfish. The testicle without the show-off is
magisterially lamenting.

Furthermore, an idiot aloof the dick jumps, and a salesman upon a forger
eats the foetal heckler.


subject: Re: Translation needed

text:
Darrell, <[email]>, whose name means "picks fights in pubs; sexually
abused by an uncle", balked:

Get fucked.

Why the [IDIOTICON], Darrell? Do you want people to say that you are
obsequiously acquiescent?


author: Mark E. Bishop

subject: Where to place a company's online catalog or services

text:
As a consultant with many companies interested in plugging into the
Internet, where would one suggest, let's say, Company B's Online Catalog
be placed?  Surely people plug their own businesses here or offer
something more than Telneting.  Please help.

 Thank you VERY much in advance.


subject: Re: Where to place a company's online catalog or services

text:
In article <2qs1ki$[email]>, [email] (Mark E. Bishop) writes:

The "plug" you are talking about is connection, not
advertisement, I hope. :)  Generally, Usenet is NOT an
advertising medium.  The exceptions are the biz.* groups.  Also,
a company may make announcements of its products (in the
appropriate *announce* groups - note APPROPRIATE) if there is
information (not hype) on the product/service provided.  There
are several *forsale* groups, where some of your information can
be posted (generally, commercial posts are allowed in the groups
only if the price offered is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than other
comparable product/service from other vendors).  In any case,
read the group charter and/or FAQ to find out what is appropriate
for that group.

Another non-intrusive method of advertising is to place your ad
accessible through any of the World Wide Web browsers so people
can 'connect' to your site and see yours products offered (again,
posting to an appropriate *announce* or biz.* group can be
considered, as well as a reference to the site in traditional
media).

[Note also that Internet and Usenet are two different things -
though Usenet uses Internet a lot.]
================================================================
Sethu R. Rathinam                       [email]


author: David DeLaney

text:
[email] (Mark E. Bishop) writes:

Surely they do, and they get flamed about it. The place for Company B's
Online Catalog is on Company B's WorldWideWeb or Mosaic homepage, or in
Company B's anonymous ftp site, *not* in The Newsgroup Company B Happens
To Resemble Most Closely or in The E-Mailboxes of Company B's Mailing List.
This is because if Company B wants to advertise, Company B had better do
it in such a way that Company B pays for it, instead of the people Company
B wants to advertise to. A few people connected most closely with Company
B could put a reference to the WWW/Mosaic page or the ftp site in their .sigs,
and people would not be too unhappy about that - but posting the Online
Catalog to comp.sys.ibm.pc.our-configuration every three days is Right Out.

Dave


author: Jim Jewett

text:
In article <2qtf1p$[email]>,  <[email]> wrote:

I suggest making it available at least by a mail server.
That way, it reaches people who ask for it -- ie, the potential customers,
rather than the potential boycotters.

But as [email] just mentioned, you can usually announce
the availability (eg, our catalog just went online) in some announce
groups.

You might also talk to the GNN folks at O'Reilly books ... their
web page is useful enough that people go looking for it -- and find
the info on their advertisers.

_________    Have a favorite group or mailing list?  Describe it to
    |                   [email]
 jJ |    Take only memories.            [email]
\__/     Leave not even footprints.     [email]


author: Vulis Terminator

subject: Re: Usenet: Predictions for the New Millennium?

text:
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Devin L. Ganger <[email]> wrote:
#    <flashything!> Remember only that on 7 Jan 2000 03:39:01 GMT, light
#    refracted through a pocket of swamp gas in news.groups
#    made Vulis Terminator <[email]> write:
#
#   > You sign that you're a sysadm at premier1, but it apparently isn't
#   > "premier" enough to have it's own Usenet, cos you post through Stanford.
#   >
#   > It's an obvious question about your sig/From/Usenet peer.
#
#    No, it's obvious you don't know how to read headers worth a damn.

I see that one flew over your head, and pooped on you:

   I asked the question because I couldn't figure the answer.

----

Path: ...newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp1!devin

If the question was too tough for you, I'll rephrase it:

   If you're in CA, why do you sign as an admin at a WA ISP?

VT

   Try not to get your panties in a bunch this time, grumpy-pie.


author: Alan Westenbroek

subject: nntp server for NT?

text:
It seems like I saw a thread on here a week or two ago about an nntp server
service for NT. Can anybody tell me where to find it?


subject: Re: nntp server for NT?

text:
[email] (Alan Westenbroek) wrote:
Well, I've recieved a ton of mail from people who would also like to know about
it, but no clues. I give up. unix and INN, here I come. . .and none too happy
about it.


author: John Hascall

subject: Re: nntp server for NT?

text:
Alan Westenbroek <[email]> wrote:
}[email] (Alan Westenbroek) wrote:
}>It seems like I saw a thread on here a week or two ago about an nntp server
}>service for NT. Can anybody tell me where to find it?
}>
}Well, I've recieved a ton of mail from people who would also like to know about
}it, but no clues. I give up. unix and INN, here I come. . .and none too happy
}about it.

I believe Software Innovations Inc, here in Ames had such a product,
but they were recently assimilated by the Borg (MS), so ...

John


author: Gary Heston

subject: Re: Advisory deletion

text:
In article <2t56cn$[email]>, Rich Salz <[email]> wrote:

While you're at it, could you guys incorporate a "site-block" feature
that would reliably drop all articles from a specified list of sites?

Something that would allow a newsadmin to provide a list of sites
(like, say, pericles.com, just as an example :-) ) for which no articles
originating there would be accepted or forwarded?

The aliasing feature in the sys file provides a crude form of this, but
works based on the host name rather than the site. I'd like to be able
to block entire sites when they cause problems (anatolia.org or zuma.uucp,
for example) and aren't interested in cleaning up their act.

I realize that this would slow down news processing somewhat, but I think
it would be a *very* popular feature. I also realize it's subject to some
abuse, but don't think that would be a major problem. After all, it would
only affect news passing through an individual site, whereas the cancel
proposals are broadcast approaches. It would be nice if this could be set
up for individual feeds as well, similar to how the aliasing works.

Comments?


author: Rich Salz

subject: Re: Advisory deletion

text:
In <2t62hb$[email]> [email] (Gary Heston) writes:

In INN 1.5 you can call a TCL procedure on every incoming article.
Your procedure returns the NNTP reply code that indicates how to handle
the article.  You can also write "init" and "error" procedures.  So
doing this will be fairly trivial.
	/r$


author: Jay Denebeim

subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation

text:
In article <[email]>,
acoftil  <[email]> wrote:

Whoops, you're right.  I didn't think about that.  AFAIK snow white
doesn't attempt any unmunging.  (although her mung is easily removable
programatically if someone wanted to try)

Sure looks like it came from a snow white virus.  It also looks like
the culprit is very easily identifiable.

Jay


author: acoftil

subject: Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation

text:
On 17 May 2001 15:03:19 GMT, [email] (Jay Denebeim) wrote:

Well, I'm not so good at identifying ppl--but I did try to match the IP--and
havent figured it out yet.  I just sent the report yesterday--so I'll see what
comes of it.  I'm just glad my net protection worked--so I never actually got
the virus.  :-)  Everyone should update their virus definitions, if they haven't
in the last two weeks.  There is a new update for Norton -- please use it. :-)

Nancy
to email me, remove the Z.

administrator/creator/moderator
alt.med.fibromyalgia.recovery.info (moderated)
alt.support.depression.manic.moderated


author: Aahz Maruch

subject: Viruses (was Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation)

text:
In article <[email]>,
acoftil  <[email]> wrote:

Nyah, nyah, can't get a virus.  (I use Unix.  ;-)


author: John M Price PhD

subject: Re: Viruses (was Re: RFD: news.admin.moderation)

text:
In news.groups article <9e1lnf$gn2$[email]> Aahz Maruch <[email]> wrote:
: In article <[email]>,
: acoftil  <[email]> wrote:
:>
:>Well, I'm not so good at identifying ppl--but I did try to match
:>the IP--and havent figured it out yet.  I just sent the report
:>yesterday--so I'll see what comes of it.  I'm just glad my net
:>protection worked--so I never actually got the virus. :-) Everyone
:>should update their virus definitions, if they haven't in the last two
:>weeks.  There is a new update for Norton -- please use it. :-)

: Nyah, nyah, can't get a virus.  (I use Unix.  ;-)

OS/2 here.


author: Terry Austin

text:
[email] (Aahz Maruch) wrote:

Yeah, worms seem to be the order of the day for *nix, rather than virii.


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: [Aioe.org] Notices about updates...Allows Carol to spam

text:
Koi-Lo wrote:

sure your sorry... let see how sorry you are?

http://tinyurl.com/99azt
http://tinyurl.com/87ow4
http://tinyurl.com/d6t5m
http://tinyurl.com/aheek
http://tinyurl.com/ck97r
http://tinyurl.com/cm3dp
http://tinyurl.com/8bscg
http://tinyurl.com/7epdg
http://tinyurl.com/bya3z


author: Javier Corrales

subject: RE: [Aioe.org] Notices about updates...Allows Carol to spam

text:
What is this group for ?

[email]

<[email]> escribiï¿½ en el mensaje de noticias
[email]...


author: Roy

text:
Its a future soap box for Carol aka Koi lo and all her sock puppets in
their hopes of converting it over to a sub forum of all the other
forums they wrecked.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 23:57:18 GMT, "Javier Corrales"
<[email]> wrote:


author: Stop stalking me

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
On Sep 15, 9:51 pm, "Scott Broderick" <[email]> wrote:

Who says they don't have raid or backups. One of the drives failed it
will
recreate the drive again when they put a new one in and recreate the
drive again.

As I said everything will be fine

You have no clue how to run a hosting company Scott so shut the fuck
up
Datona Communications AKA datona.com and tooniehosting.ca are
just a scam!


author: Marc Bissonnette

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
Stop stalking me <[email]> jumped out of the airlock. These
were their final words before their head exploded:
news:[email]:

Scott has no clue ? SCOTT has no clue ? You just suggested that your pirate
web host DOES have RAID and redundant backups, yet they're STILL down after
an entire day. Not to mention the fact that the support mail you pasted
into here says "pray all gets sorted" - Since when do web hosts involve
religious invocations as part of their disaster recovery planning ?

Good Gawd, Jamie, it really is you that hasn't a clue.


author: Sam

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
Stop stalking me writes:

Tard, can you explain what kind of a disk failure includes the host losing
their domain to a squatter?

How does losing a disk result in the host losing their domain?

It's laughably obvious to everyone except you that this is just the first
excuse your spamhost could think of.

datatona.com and tooniehosting.ca are currently up. Which is more of a clue
than your host has, at the moment.

Stupid tard.


author: Some Bastard

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:54:43 -0700 (PDT), Stop stalking me
<[email]> wrote:

1 hard drive failure takes out 2 dns servers?  Sounds like a tard
designed hosting service to me.

I'd like to see you run a sucessful business fat fuck.  Hell, you
can't even sucessfully hire a hooker without being arrested.


author: Spamtard

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
On 9/15/2010 11:54 PM, Stop stalking me wrote:

Stupid spamtard, do you even know what RAID is?  They should have been
back up within an hour, as Scott said.  Some RAID systems will keep on
working even with a failed drive, and it can be replaced with ZERO
downtime (hot swappable drives).

p.s. congrats.  Not only did you get booted from Datona, you managed to
get Datona's admin involved with this group. You were more than just a
headache to him.  He's now here to see how stupid a spamtard can
actually be, one of your "fans".  It's like watching a train wreck.


author: Scott Broderick

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
"Stop stalking me" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Sep 15, 9:51 pm, "Scott Broderick" <[email]> wrote:

Who says they don't have raid or backups. One of the drives failed it
will
recreate the drive again when they put a new one in and recreate the
drive again.

As I said everything will be fine

You have no clue how to run a hosting company Scott so shut the fuck
up
Datona Communications AKA datona.com and tooniehosting.ca are
just a scam!

Baillie, obviously you should keep your mouth shut because as your statement
shows about the raid drive, you do not know what you are talking about fat
ass. So get back to your sheep, they are calling for you! Maybe spend 2
minutes learning about raid drive setups dumb ass!

Scott Broderick


author: Betty Lou Hooker

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
On 9/16/2010 7:12 AM, Sam wrote:

Considering that his "explanation" indicates a complete lack of
understanding as to how RAID works, I think I'd table the squatter question.


subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
Spamtard writes:

He's just a tard, that's all. Last year a drive failed on one of my servers.
I hot-swapped it in about ten minutes. No downtime. The server remained up
throughout the process.


subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
"Spamtard" <[email]> wrote in message
news:i6s632$uv2$[email]...

"Train Wreck" is what it is. He keeps digging himself a hole that he can't
get out of. Lie after lie.
Above that, he starts talking about things like the hard drive issue when he
does not have a clue how server drive systems operate! That's was amazes me.
And above all this, I have actually received signups for hosting form the
NANAE postings! Free advertisements. Thanks Baillie.

Scott Broderick


subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
On 9/16/2010 7:14 AM, Sam wrote:
I'm guessing that his "technical explanation" of a SAN would be
completely priceless. Maybe he can go to work for Dell/EMC.


subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
On 9/16/2010 12:52 AM, Scott Broderick wrote:

That's really got to yank Lamie, The Group Asshole's chain. The fact
that booting him actually brought you business would be a revelation to
anyone not retarded, but said revalation will continue to elude Lamie,
The Group Scumbag.


author: Robert Bonomi

subject: Re: Oops!... What's going on, Jamie???

text:
In article <i6t1s6$s2d$[email]>,
Betty Lou Hooker  <[email]> wrote:

oh.  That's the predecessoer of ANDREAS.  the California 'fault'
detection and impact analysis system.


author: dvdivx

subject: xnews question for someone familar with grabit

text:
I use xnews primarily. In some mac groups I can't download stuff without
grabit. Grabit will save files without an extention as a text file which I
can later convert on my mac. Is there any way of having xnews save files
without an extention as a text file like grabit does?


subject: Re: xnews question for someone familar with grabit

text:
why u need it anyway ?

Cowly the Game player

Please click on my links
http://spacefed.com
http://gc.gamestotal.org
http://uc.gamestotal.org
http://aw.gamestotal.org
http://www.gamestotal.org
http://3700ad.gamestotal.com
http://www.spacefederation.net
http://www.gamestotal.org/news/
http://ballmonster.gamestotal.com
http://www.spacefederation.net/manual/
http://gc.gamestotal.org/i.cfm?p=aboutgc
http://uc.gamestotal.org/i.cfm?p=aboutgc
http://www.gamestotal.org/corp/
http://www.gamestotal.org/strategygames/


text:
my pc desktop has 1.2 tb hdd space and my powerbook has only about 20gb to
spare. So the pc is the primary leeching computer.
Basically I just need to know how to save files without an extention as a
text file in xnews. I prefer xnews over grabit since xnews is a much better
usenet reader.


author: Brian Bay

subject: Re: aol news server address

text:
Robhiggins715 wrote:

You have to use AOL's software to access their news servers. :((((

                               --Cheers,
                                 Brian


author: Peter Bennett

subject: Re: aol news server address

text:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 21:49:01 GMT, [email]
(Robhiggins715) wrote:

AOL's news server can only be accessed using AOL's own software.
"Normal" newsreaders like Agent, Netscape, Outlook Excuse, etc. cannot
access AOL's news (or mail) servers.


author: JM

subject: Re: aol news server address

text:
can't be done.  An external news server must be used.

In article <[email]>,
[email] says...