Dealing with abusive multiple posts

Interesting. I used to use Netscape on this PC but abandoned it because of too frequent freezes and crashes. I'll see whether I can still find it in the attic of hard drive.

It's like white listing. Doesn't work. Some people even use that on their phones. There have been instances where folks lost business because it was too cumbersome to get through.

I get about 50-100 spams a day. Takes a grand total of three minutes to hose it all off. Maximum.

I'm running it under XP with no problems. Most current websites will trash the browser, though.

in a

that

need

How long do you think it would take to complete the changeover when an ISP's customers are all complaining that their email wouldn't go anywhere without the extra hassle?

I bounce them with mailwasher. It dropped my spam from over 2000 a day to a couple dozen. Now, I get more Ebay and Paypal Phishers than spam. The joke is on them, I've never had an account with either of them. I've had fun with some of the Phishers. I fill out a fake user name and password. They email me to tell me it didn't work, and ask me to try again. Its a laugh to open an email that says, "Dear Mr. Bull S. Hitsky, your password burn666hell didn't work. Sometimes the idiots try four or five times before they give up. ;-)

No new bureaucracy needed. Let the ISPs keep it.

Apparently trying to avoid being defined as Spam.

A penny per message, or even a tenth that, would kill most spam.

John

in a

that

need

Longer than you think. Just one example: Last year I suddenly could not send anything to the t-online.de domain. Turns out Telekom in Germany decided our SBC server is too rogue and banned it. Called SBC, wrote Telekom, nada. Then I started getting "please help us" phone calls from biz friends over there, some of them rather urgent. They no longer got responses from some US companies. Duh! It took about a week to unclog that mess. Which also shows that Internet is by far less reliable of a medium compared to ye old telephone. Don't rely on it.

:-))

another good one is anyting originating from alt.net

that is: filter '@alt.net' in the message-id line. many of the kooks are posting from there because they alt.net do nothing to encourage responsibility.

Bye. Jasen

how does that differ from servers using the existing protocol whicg do the same.

that's pretty primitive. some many mail servers today will reject spam from any servers that dont resolve the same using both forward and reverse dns.

another trick is bouncing mail if the sending server dosen't answer accept mail to postmaster.

and then there's things likre RBL, and graylisting.

they do.

you can see how well it works.

It'd cost because what you propose will be less effective than what it replaces.

Bye. Jasen

Ok, have it your way.

It can be done. Anyone can cancel any usenet message. It's just that newsreaders don't provide a button for that. There are many cancel bots active, but of cource you rarely see the result ;)

I know it is possible to cancel ones own post, although I don't think it can be done in OE. I can catch it in my Outbox if I realize I made a mistake, but once it's sent, I don't see any way to reverse the process. The message appears when I download new headers, usually within a minute. I don't think a cancel message could catch up with all the copies of the message in servers all over the world in time to keep it from being downloaded by a lot of users.

If anyone can cancel any usenet message, that would be a serious breach of freedom. Of course, once someone sees a message they would want to cancel, it is already "out there", and has probably been downloaded to thousands of users' local machines. It would be *really* invasive to be able to delete those messages.

It should be enough to verify that the originating email address is valid. Perhaps the servers that receive and propagate messages should send email back to the originator and require a response within a reasonable time period. This would effectively eliminate the anonymous bulk emailers and posters who want to hide.

I can't understand the rationale behind the spam emails that are attempts by someone to make money, yet the originating email address is bogus. How does that make money for anyone? If it has a link to a website, there must be some way to determine who controls it, and take proper action. However, I think a lot of this is based on something like a "nickel per click", where someone can make an anonymous post or send anonymous emails, but somehow the website owner can know who did the spam job and compensate them for it. Most likely, they really can't, so the perp gets nothing and the website gets free ads for their crap.

Paul

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:34:50 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" Gave us:

Sorry, but YOU cannot cancel MY post, idiot. YOU would have to be an admin on MY NNTP server. The only other way is for ME to do it.

Nonsense. Your posts may be cancelled at anytime for various reasons. Rogue canceling is against the TOS of most news servers but I expect many folk might cheerfully sacrifice $6 or so for a throw away account to cancel your posts.

On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:25:53 -0700, Brandon D Cartwright Gave us:

Your an idiot.

And yet I know about rogue cancels and you do not.

ANYONE can cancel your posts any time they feel like it.

This document contains information about cancel messages on Usenet, such as who is allowed to use them, how they operate, what to do if your message is cancelled, and the like. It does not contain detailed instructions on how to cancel a third party's posts. It is not intended to be a fully technical document; its audience is the average Usenet user, up to a mid-level administrator.

This document is not meant to be a comprehensive explanation of Usenet protocols, or of Usenet itself, but a basic knowledge of these concepts is assumed. Please refer to news.announce.newusers, RFC1036, and/or RFC1036bis if you wish to learn them.

Disclaimers: The information contained within is potentially hazardous; applying it without the permission of your news administrator may cause the revocation of your account, civil action against you, and even the possibility of criminal lawsuits. The author of this document is in no way liable for misuse of the information contained within, nor is he in any way responsible for damages related to the use or accuracy of the information. Proceed at your own risk.

I found this to be fascinating reading. I'm surprised now that so much spam and other abuse is still happening.

Paul

If you are interested you can glean much insight by looking at the Usenet group< control.cancel > where all the cancel messages are .

A glimpse of the underworld so as to speak.

Those messages that were posted that never showed up could well be there! :)