Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- From: Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 14, 11:17 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:02:14 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
jd_l...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Can anything be done about the low-lifes that post spam in this
group? I know nothing about web site hosting, but I'd be willing to
donate my time if a novice could be of any assistance.
Set up local filters to zap stuff on certain keywords and or dodgy
domains. The only other quick fix is to agree a rule that all genuine
posts should have a particular keyword in the header or body of the
text. Some of the Astronomy groups have taken this approach.
It's an unmoderated USENET newsgroup, so there's not much that you can
do directly. If you pay attention to the chatter about it, you'll see
that much of the spam is coming through Google Groups. If enough folks
deny them their business (and therefore ad revenue) they may pay
attention. If not -- not.
The problem is HOW to make that happen...
Currently I have _65_ "good guys" white-listed who post from Google
Groups.
I doubt I am in your list, but I do sometimes post from Google groups,
either on the road or when as in this case my friendly neighbourhood
NNTP server is being reorganised (ie broken) to cope with the deluge
of dross coming out of Gmail (or forged to look like it does but
actually from botnets). It is pretty annoying that Google archives all
this junk.
s.e.d seems to get more than its fair share incidentally.
One might argue that these 65 ARE contributing to Google profits.
OTOH provided they never click on a Google advert they just use a tiny
bit of bandwidth and electricty so are a net cost to Google. Leaving
questions posted by Gmail users unanswered is one way to register a
local protest.
Perhaps we should filter 100% against Google Groups posters to force
the "good guys" to raise hell with Google? Or cause them to change to
another provider?
Is there a consensus??
Text based Usenet is possibly on its last legs now. The global
transport mechanism using NNTP is costly to ISPs and many are dropping
it as the cost benefit ratio is just not there (and they want to
reclaim the external bandwidth for TV on demand services like BBC
iPlayer). This is even more true if they take the huge binary groups.
Web GUI stuff has pretty much taken over. The original Interent
protocols were based on a trust system and the spammers and sporgers
now have enough bandwidth of compromised machines to cause mayhem.
Even a script kiddie can easily render a Usenet group completely
unreadable these days :( It all worked fine when it was largely a
technical academic network and people played by the (largely unwritten
at that time) rules of netiquette.
Regards,
Martin Brown
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- From: Michael A. Terrell
- Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- References:
- OT: Spam in this User Group
- From: jd_lark
- Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- From: Tim Wescott
- Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- From: Jim Thompson
- OT: Spam in this User Group
- Prev by Date: Re: Winding MHz 1:4 transformer
- Next by Date: Re: Popular Microchip PIC's
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Spam in this User Group
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
