Source: Page 120 of White Noise Keywords: "opposite," "would," "halted," "traffic"

From: "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: FREE templates, photos, icons... Date: 29 Jan 2006 Newsgroups: alt.www.webmaster

"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message news:Xns97594C50334Bcastleamber@130.133.1.4... > "T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote: >> Min is one person and he still posts repeatedly in other groups. At >> best you have wounded him. > Enough to get him out of ais-e. It wasn't even that hard (to be honest I > was suprised that after sending out 10 emails, 5 pages were gone the > next day). I may try this again. At the moment he is kill filed but every day I see around 10 - 20 posts from people replying to his offensive comments. news:alt.usenet.kooks seem to give him an award quite often. >> I am not doubting that, in cases like Min where the posts are >> pathological and repeated under the same name, reporting people can >> work. > The sad thing is, it's the opposite. People like Min *want* to be very > badly heard on Usenet, and go at very great length to find a way to keep > going and going. They have infinite resources to keep going and going. I agree with you 100% here. Min has (IMO) a pathological need to get his rants onto USENET, which is why reporting him to his ISP (and getting sites closed) is effective because it is the only way you can strike a blow at the lunatic. Unless some one makes it legal to have him shot that is. :-) >> I think it is simlar to trying to drain the ocean with a spoon >> when it comes to the "real" spammers who are advertising a product >> that doesnt require them to keep the same username with each post. > In order to post you need access to a usenet server. There are not that > many out there that are free and open. Most that are free and open have > a very strict policy on spam. In short: a real spammer has to hop from > account to account. Runs out of free ones and gateways in a very short > time and has to decide: paying money, or stopping. sadly, it is still often cost effective for them to pay the money. There are enough people who buy the pointless pills to make the (often) trivial costs of NNTP access seem very worthwhile. > I don't know of any real Usenet spammers. I do know of trolls and worse, > which are very hard to weed out. I agree they are hard to damage. Which is odd, as IMO they are more of a "problem" on newsgroups than spammers. > Ask the OP if he has received an official warning from his/her ISP. Even > if the answer is no, lets see if he/she is going to post a similar > message. But one of the things I thought we had agreed on was this was a largely hit and run post. In that case, there is a good chance he wasnt going to post here ever again anyway. The question of Viper's value still remains in the balance. >> Is there are point at which stopping spam becomes more important than >> welcoming new members? > I understand your point, but do you understand that if this group > becomes a collection of "Free templates", "Free photos", "Free Perl > Scripts" messages that the number of new members will mainly consist of > people also having FREE things? Ok, I agree that *if* the group becomes swamped with "FREE XYZ" posts then it becomes difficult to use. However, there is an implicit assumption that not posting "I have reported this guy to his ISP" messages will result in the increase of "FREE XYZ" traffic. This is what I do not agree with. I do not think it is a guaranteed cause and effect chain. The basic implication of this is that spammers read the newsgroups before they post to them, which I think is very rare. > Where do we discuss webmaster issues then? Well, we could always blog :-) > And yes, it's a fact that people do give up on Usenet because it's not a > friendly place, especially not to beginners. On the other hand Usenet is > way, way bigger then 10 years ago, or at least that's my impression. I agree with you here. USENET is much more active now than it used to be, despite the dire lamentations that chat boards and blogs would kill it off. USENET (somehow) manages to keep on going. It is a less friendly place than I remember from my first forays though, but obviously this has not impacted on its growth. It is interesting to think why USENET survives in this world of phpBB / blogs. Could it be that people can post here with out having their messages deleted by power hungry mods is a bonus? > The question is: do we need each and every new member, or do we want to > keep the regulars? >> I am still far from convinced that the OP for this thread was spam. > Yes, spam is very subjective, and I trust the ISPs judgement in this. I suspect this is only because you have to. You have still made the first judgement call in reporting something to the ISP. Once they get the message you have changed the presumption of innocence and if the ISP is undecided there is a good chance that the simple fact it has been reported will make them tend towards agreement. > But I don't want to see 10-20 similar messages daily in this group. > Maybe you think: but that isn't happening. But I think: it isn't > happening just now, because (flashes his netcop badge). Well. > [ DJM ] >> Excellent. Hitting DJM is always a good thing. I have reported him a >> few times in the past but to little avail as far as I could ever tell. > He probably still uses the right tools to post :-D. If he still promotes > his astro books, and still has 10 links in each message, complain with > the free hosters. Some just drop the page without even thinking :-) If > you use firefox, getting the abuse address is as easy as typing > abuse example.com > in the address bar after reading this: > http://johnbokma.com/mexit/2006/01/23/ I shall do that now. I have a special place in my book of dislike for Min. >> I found kill filling him much more effective - except there are always >> people who respond to his trolls. > Yes, hence I try to report them. In the perl group I frequent we have > Xah Lee. Also a hard case. Cool. The world is full of them. Has anyone dealt with the "google basher" in this group? I have filtered him out as well so I dont know if he still posts here. I have noticed no signs of Viper reporting him to his ISP though. >> Possibly. I am not really doubting this as such. I think that Viper >> needs to re-assess what his trigger point for deciding something is >> spam though. > I don't read each and every message here, so I might have overlooked > some or most of the messages. In the end its always the ISP that decides > on the action. I have no idea what they do with someone who sends too > many unjustified complaints. If I was on an abuse desk I would make the > sender clear to think twice, and if that doesn't help, I would contact > his/her ISP :-) Lot of extra work for people - and generally people are lazy. From my experience people on ISP help / abuse desks are so badly paid I am amazed they do any work at all, let alone do extra work. > Yup, what is no problem in one group, is a serious one in another. In > the past I followed a Dutch group on internet abuse. But quite a lot of > people think it's *the* place to move each and every flame war to when > it gets personal. Since the Dutch hierarchy does have several cancel > bots running, another bunch of people come over to defend their freedom > of speech, thinking it means that you can use a bullhorn at 3 in the > morning to express your opinion in the garden of the neighbor. Freedom of speech is an often misunderstood right - especially so in countries where there is no explicit constition promising that freedom. Sadly people assume the freedom to speak includes the requirement for others to listen. :-) USENET does seem a haven for people who want a big audience though. >> No. Viper can give up reporting spam for all I care. There are others >> on this group who are much better suited at informing and educating >> people. > I think you don't want to read (no I am not posting them) some of my > reports, especially not the ones I sent out to the provider of gbxxxx > :-). Somehow we live in a world were "Can you please investigate into > this matter" doesn't work but "Can you kick this <beep> off the net" > does. I dont have a problem with that. I am fairly sure that isnt the post you would make when reporting someone for a first offence. >> Good. I have yet to see Viper excercise the same restraint. > :-) It's more lack of time, I am afraid (partly caused by my long posts) Nothing wrong with that. The way I see it posts like this all mean Google has to buy more disk space :-) >>>> I do know that the volume of spam is pretty much the same (or more) >>>> than it was 5 years ago and is certainly more than when I first went >>>> online in 1994. >>> On Usenet? >> Well, on the AOL interface for a while. > *ouch* Yes. We all start somewhere and free AOL disks were a decent enough way to get online in the UK then. >> I did a quick google search >> trying to remember the username I had then and the earliest google >> post I can find for me is 1996. As I know the username then was not >> the first "post-AOL" one, while I cant remember exactly my first >> usenet post was sometime 1995-ish. > For me a bit earlier, and total volume wise you might be right, it has > grown significantly. But taking the number of spam per post into account > I have the feeling that it has been stable for a long, long time. Yes. And I assume you put this down to the heroic battle the *netcops* are fighting against the forces of darkness? >> My first internet access was 1994 and yes, I did get unsolicited >> commercial email although it didnt have a "name" then. It was just >> crap. :-) > Somewhere there is a post on Usenet by me, complaining about the massive > amount of spam I received that day: 7 messages :-D. :-) >>> For Usenet, something is working. If it didn't, the volume would be >>> much higher. >> Really? Prove it. > Why do you think most spam stops after 2-3 attempts on Usenet? I don't > see this happening in my mailbox. Still, there is nothing to say this is a result of the reports. You are assuming that one follows the other without being able to prove a causal chain. I very rarely see the same person spam my email box more than twice. > You think DJM would have left ais-e if I (and probably quite some > others) didn't start reporting him? I have no idea. He is, as far as I can tell, insane and I have no rational way of prediciting his actions. I know quite a few people have been reporting him in sci.physics and he is still there. >>> Also some measurements have been taking against crossposting. >>> There was a time you could cross to 13 groups (been there :-) ), >>> nowadays quite some ISPs run server software that doesn't allow the >>> number to be higher then 5. >> Yes and that is an improvement - of sorts. While I cant think of an >> example, it is a shame that a message that may be relevant to 6 groups >> has to be multiposted if you use Google for instance. IMO cross >> posting is better than sending multiple copies of the message out. > I can't think of a message relevant to more then 3 groups. I was in 13 > groups because the OP was in 13 groups, and I didn't check the number of > groups it was crossed to. I agree the chances of a message being relevant to a large number of groups is low, however it comes down to choice. Should an ISP (or googlegroups for example) have the final say on how many newsgroups you can post to? While I cant think of a message I would cross post (other than replies to crossposted messages), it is a shame that - should I ever have reason to do so - some ISPs would restrict me. Science groups are the best example I can think of. It is reasonable to think of someone having a question that is relevant to a relativity group, fusion physics group etc. I suspect in this instance a lot boils down to the amount of control we feel should be sacrificed to the ISPs/NNTP hosts to reduce the crap posted. Its more reliable than actually educating people I suppose. >> No it is not that easy - but it is still not possible to move the >> burden of descision out of the hands of the person who reports it. > We can't ask each and every ISP to scan each and every post :-) Which is why I say the person reporting it *has* made the decision it is spam and not the ISP. >> As I said, the free is suspicious. The URL pointed to a site that >> could easily have been construed as relevant to AWW. If the link had >> been by someone else, would you have thought it was spam? > I think we both agree that a lot depends on how the message is presented > in this group. If I had posted the URL with a bit different subject I > doubt if viper had sent his love letter :-D. We do agree that the presentation of the message is important. I dont think Viper would have held back on his love letter in this instance though. (no matter what). > And I think that everybody agrees that this is a bit odd. Yes. Everyone agrees Viper is a bit odd. :-D > On the other hand, I have seen quite some posts that someone pretending > to recommend "A great resource I just found" turned out to be the site > owner. Yes, its not unheard of. I havent seen on "reported" by Viper though. >> When the crappy million dollar home page clones were all over the >> shop, they were snuck in as "review my site" and "check out this great >> site I found." Were they acceptable? (Very few were hit by Viper). > I think I reported a few of those. When I don't have much time I am not > going to post a follow up, especially not if it's very clear it's spam. Good. I prefer it if people dont post "I reported him" messages :-) I dont remember seeing any of the million-crap-homepages posted here that werent spam >> or the numerous "buy my service" posts. The closest thing to >> commercial in his message was the Google adsense on the site. > Spam doesn't have to be commercial. I didn't look at the site when I > reported, I rarely do (I did afterwards though) This is why, I think, it is critical we have something which defines "spam." To me, spam is a commercial based message. If we broaden spam to be any old crap we dont like, I am going to take a week of work and do some major reporting :-) >> But should it? USENET is an international system and while convention >> dictates posts in English, not all users have English as their first >> language. Writing style could simply be based on a mistaken >> understanding. > Yup. OTOH, if I visit a foreign country I am aware that what I consider > normal might be very well not normal in that country. But I am sure you still make mistakes. > Moreover, I doubt > that this posting was an accident, and the OP didn't know. I agree with you on that now. I suspect we have moved away from me trying to defend the OP (who is sadly absent in this debate :-( ) and defend a point of principle. Oh well. I still think Viper is an objectional crackpot. :-) >> I genuinely hate the phrase Netcop. It implies that the person has >> some sort of authority behind their actions. > I think there are plenty of people who are offended if you call them a > Netcop, so in a way its mutual. I am afraid that it's use often is the > same as Netnazi. :-) I would, personally, avoid using either term. >> No, by reporting it you have made the decision. > No, since I am not going to decide what is going to happen with my > report. It might end up in /dev/null. But you have still decided it is spam. What happens to it is out of your hands, but that is a different matter. You have decided it is spam, the ISP decides what (if any) action to take. >> By simply reporting them and posting to that effect, all debate is >> largely killed (although we have made this thread quite long all by >> ourselves). > Again: the OP IMNSHO as aware what he/she was doing. Also, he/she > probably has received more visits because of being called a spammer then > if we all had just ignored it. That almost sounds like he got what he > wanted. But he probably isn't going to do the same thing again here. Yes and I have modified my position on the OP now. I do think he was (at best) a hit and run poster not willing to contribute to the group. This still isnt quite the same (IMO) as him being a spammer but this is down to differences in terminology which I dont think we will ever resolve. > Didn't say that. And the only thing that has changed is that more people > do have access to the net. And using impatient/lack of time as an excuse > (as a newbie, which the OP isn't) is quite lame if you ask others to > give their time to you. I am not saying it is an excuse, I am saying *people* online are different than they used to be. When I first came online almost everyone else was a student. Now its a very different cross section of humanity. When the net was, mainly, an education tool people had shared experiences and understandings which are different to the people on the net today. > I'm getting old :-) Ask around, I am sure you can find 10 people in a > very short time who would put me without thinking twice at the same > level as you put viper :-D. Possibly but unlikely. To me the main difference is your posts here add value to the group and Viper's dont. >>> But I think that I am quite right if I state that [a] the OP was very >>> aware of what he/she was doing and [b] did it exactly so on purpose. >> You may well be. I dont agree and it will be interesting to see which >> vison of reality is the truth. > Did you already enter the spamvertized URL in Google Groups? No, I hadnt at the time. Sadly, I am not right 100% of the time. :-) >> Yes. And so they should. > Sometimes I think they shouldn't, especially if they try to shoot > someone down for something they do themselves all the time. Yes, fair point. Viper has commercial services in his .sig (or did have until recently) and it could be argued that his "reported to ISP" posts were simply an excuse to get his URLs advertised and linked to from Google. >> No, but you have the last word on the reporting of it, which what is >> under debate here. > There are two options: the ISP agrees, or the ISP disagrees. I doubt if > I can report random posts to ISPs. And I report so little that I can't > claim to have some kind of status with ISPs. So I doubt if there is any > difference between me reporting and you. You *can* report random posts to the ISPs. The effect would be very questionable and, hopefully, after a few they would take action against you. I dont think there is any difference in status but I do think that when you report something it means it has already be judged spam by at least one person. The final action that is taken is out of your (Viper's) hands but there already has been a value judgement made on the post. [about keeping groups unmoderated by reporting posts] >> - again, it is one I would >> debate though. > Maybe you should first ask people who do the dirty work :-) Possibly but they are often not the best people to judge the effectiveness of their work. They have a vested interest in believing it is working, and as such, are very resistant to any criticism about their actions. The problem with self-appointed defenders is that having no one to be accountable to, it is easy to become self-fulfiling. >> If people stopped canceling messages or reporting spam do you think >> every news group would suddenly become moderated? If not then what you >> say isnt true. > I know a few groups that would be instantenously swamped when the > cancelbots are turned off. Isnt reporting the posters to their ISPs working? > How I know? Because I have seen it happen > when one bot died because of a bug. Maybe you hang out in the nice > places of Usenet. I try to.... :-) > Have you ever seen a group beeing flooded? Granted, not for a few years now. I have also been in groups where rogue "netcops" have started cancelling messages they simply disagreed with. > Or rough > canceled empty? Maybe you should have a peek in control.cancel (I hope I > got it right) which is a pseudo group in which all cancel messages are > posted. I recommend to configure your client to limit the number of > headers to fetch though. (you did get the group name correct) Yes, I accept there are quite a few and the traffic there is high. Cancelling and reporting messages is not something I am fundamentally against. (Yet). Posting that you have done it, however, is. >> I have never doubted that reporting abuse does have some >> effect - but I very much doubt it would spell the end of usenet. > Because you have no idea how much garbage daily is removed or halted at > the door, I am afraid. Ok. The issue I have with this thread is not the reporting of message and certainly not cancelling them. However, this is an untestable prediction you can make at any time. You can always refer to the amount of messages that "never get seen because the NetCop heroes stop them" because they are not there to be seen because they are stopped etc. I am not doubting the levels of spam on USENET. If the amount is as high as you make out, after many years of NetCop reporting, then I still question the effectiveness of the reporting. >> Also, if you have a group with a self appointed "Netcop" who reports >> posts as he or she feels fit, with no acountability to the group - how >> is that "better" than being moderated? > Because the self appointed netcop has 0 authority. He/she can't stop > someone from posting. Only the ISP can. I would be interested to see what percentage of spam reports "decent" ISPs (the ones that dont /dev/null the message in the first place) dont react to in a manner which pre-judges the post as spam. The netcop is reporting people without authority or even approval. If an ISP recieves lots of posts about your messages being spam, there is a good chance they will drop your account no matter what. This gives the netcop some level of ability without authority / acountability. Granted it is something *anyone* can do, but it still doesnt make doing it right. At the end of the day, the person reporting the message has made a value judgement on behalf of the group without the group's permission. >> However you do decide which messages you will report. You have to make >> a judgement call based on how you value the content of the message. > Yes. Which means you have judged the message as spam before the ISP. >> This means Viper is the person who makes the call on whether or not a >> message in a group is spammy enough to be reported to an ISP. Who gave >> him that authority? > You're mistaken, he has no authority. He has no power. He doesn't judge, > as in hear & decide: the ISP does. He does judge. He has judged the message as spam. He doesnt punish that is the only difference. Who gave Viper the right to decide what was appropriate or inappropriate for this group? Who gave Viper the authority to decide what should be reported in this group and what shouldnt? >> Probably, but one or two ISPs would cancel people's accounts. > Now its my time to ask: do you have proof that one just have an account > canceled by making up abuse? I always have to include the full message, > including headers. And I am aware that just that is quite a weak report, > unless several other people do the same. In most cases I do a but more > reseach (Google), or wait until the second post pops up. I had a client a few years ago (2000) who had their account cancelled by *ISP* in the UK citing violation of the T&C. As they were reliant on the internet for their business it was a pretty damaging blow. After getting lawyers involved *ISP* released the messages which had reported the client for spamming and looking through them (there were four messages - all from the same person) it very quickly became apparent that the headers were forged - badly. *ISP* stated that they had not been able to spare the staff to look through them to that level of detail and referred to a clause in their T&C which was (don't remember exact wording) to the effect of if we receive complaints about your use of this service we will terminate your service without notice. They were more than willing to re-instate the service but the end result was a week offline. They also subsequently amended their T&C as far as I am aware. (While I don't want to name the ISP they had a name very similar to the logo for FreeBSD Unix) The problem is, especially with smaller outfits, often ISPs will simply not have the resources to fully and fairly investigate every complaint. By reporting someone you have placed the balance of probability in favour of them being a spammer.

Back to "The Usenet Project" Main Page - Back to Starve.Org Main Page - Contact - Starve Archive