The following threads in rec.woodworking are trolls:
- Best infant formula for newborns
- Is woodturning considered woodworking?
In each case, the original post in the thread was made through Google Groups,
with a forged From header purporting the post to have been made by Dave
Balderstone. Also in each case, the original post was made to some *other*
group (misc.kids and rec.crafts.woodturning, respectively) with followups set
to rec.woodworking.
It seems that someone has figured out a very effective way of trolling this
group: drop a stinkbomb, or even a legitimate on-topic post, in some other
group with followups set here. There doesn't seem to be a way to stop the
replies from coming here, as the headers of the replies do not indicate that
the original posts were not directed at this group.
If anyone has any ideas regarding ways of filtering the replies to these troll
posts, I'd love to hear them. Filtering the originals is trivial, but
pointless, as they do not appear in this group to begin with.
The best I've come up with so far is:
(a) Complain to Google, and request that they disable setting followups to
other groups. I'm guessing that won't get too far, for at least two reasons:
first, there are legitimate reasons for setting followups, and second, Google
isn't too responsive to complaints in any event.
(b) Drop all posts that originate from, or reference posts that originate
from, googlegroups.com.
(c) Plead with everyone reading this group to IGNORE all trolls. Do not
respond _at_all_, PLEASE. Not even to say "go away".
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
I could post through another newsreader but like I said I prefer this
interface and nntp is blocked in a lot of places so a good web
interface can be peoples only route to usenet. It's not like you can't
post trolls via any newsreader, it's not a ggroups specific thing. To
be honest I find this group to be almost exclusively spam free (does
ggroups filter?). Anyway filter me away if you like but then I might be
tempted to fire up News Xpress 2.01 and fire off a few trolls via
Prodigy ;-)
Doug Miller wrote:
> I agree. I can't understand their refusal to implement even the most
basic
> content filtering; for example, any post with the racial slur n****r
in either
> the title or the body should be dropped, unconditionally. There is
*no*
> context in which that word is appropriate. And their "Safe Search"
filter for
> browsing newsgroups isn't worth much, either: it drops posts with
offensive
> *content* but completely ignores offensive "subject* lines.
>
It is completely appropriate for discussion of the slur itself
as well as the etymology of the word.
Tiis is why server-side content filters are always a bad idea.
I know you mean well, but your aproach is identical to the
famous AOL filter that blocked the breast-cancer survivor's
mailist forcing them to temporarily change the name of the
disease to 'hooter cancer' to evade the filtering.
Or AOL's refusal to deliver email sent from Scunthorpe, England.
--
FF
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> The best I've come up with so far is:
>
> (a) Complain to Google, and request that they disable setting followups to
> other groups. I'm guessing that won't get too far, for at least two reasons:
> first, there are legitimate reasons for setting followups, and second, Google
> isn't too responsive to complaints in any event.
>
> (b) Drop all posts that originate from, or reference posts that originate
> from, googlegroups.com.
>
> (c) Plead with everyone reading this group to IGNORE all trolls. Do not
> respond _at_all_, PLEASE. Not even to say "go away".
B and C certainly work for me.
Standard Advice: Ignore, Filter, Help others to do the same.
djb
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
In article <[email protected]>, B a r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:
> This works for me, but the turning discussion actually seemed like a
> valid topic.
Which it could be if it wasn't deliberately started by the troll.
Same with the infant formula thread... valid (though off-topic for rww).
With this particular troll, if you filter for "zzn" in the "from"
header you will catch all their posts though not the replies from wreck
members who should know better.
djb
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
In article <[email protected]>,
damian penney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't go filtering GoogleGroups posts. I love their interface and use
> it exclusively, and yes I've tried numerous other newsreaders.
Personally, I think Google Groups should be under a Usenet Death
Penalty until they smarten up and start taking abuse complaints
seriously.
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
In article <[email protected]>, John, in MN
<[email protected]> wrote:
> If you change the filters for this Doug, I'll use them.
> I don't see any other workable options. How's that tooth doing? [G]
I just changed my filters to kill anything that even references google.
There will be collateral damage and I know I'll miss posts I would
otherwise be interested in seeing but I don't have an alternative.
Bye-bye Google Groups.
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "John, in MN"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >If you change the filters for this Doug, I'll use them.
>
> Coming soon... (next ten minutes or so)
I'm now killing any message that even includes google in the References
header.
Killing gnats with cruise missles, I know...
--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows
In article <[email protected]>, "John, in MN" <[email protected]> wrote:
>If you change the filters for this Doug, I'll use them.
Coming soon... (next ten minutes or so)
>I don't see any other workable options. How's that tooth doing? [G]
LOL
>John, in Minnesota
>
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:38:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>The following threads in rec.woodworking are trolls:
>>- Best infant formula for newborns
>>- Is woodturning considered woodworking?
>[snip]
Also these threads:
- Root canal or extraction
- Good undergraduate physics departments
- Behavior and dog foods
- Good college for accounting MBA
- Nursing school for my daughter
- Best 3-Chip MiniDV Cam
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:38:12 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> The following threads in rec.woodworking are trolls:
> - Best infant formula for newborns
> - Is woodturning considered woodworking?
For a while, I've been dropping any message crossposted to more than 3
groups. I may reduce that to "crossposted at all", because rarely do
I see a legitimate message that is crossposted. Just look for a comma
in the newsgroups line, as syntax.
Right now, if I see 3 commas in that line, it's gone.
Dave Hinz
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:19:50 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> damian penney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't go filtering GoogleGroups posts. I love their interface and use
>> it exclusively, and yes I've tried numerous other newsreaders.
>
> Personally, I think Google Groups should be under a Usenet Death
> Penalty until they smarten up and start taking abuse complaints
> seriously.
They used to be prety good about it, but I think they've fallen down on
that lately.
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>(c) Plead with everyone reading this group to IGNORE all trolls.
B a r r y wrote:
> This works for me, but the turning discussion actually seemed like a
> valid topic.
I'd agree with both of the above. I replied to it since it was
ON-topic and a legit question. Checking all headers against a
certified list of real addys makes it WAY too much like work. Any
good ideas on how to get around the problem?
Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/
If you change the filters for this Doug, I'll use them.
I don't see any other workable options. How's that tooth doing? [G]
John, in Minnesota
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:38:12 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>The following threads in rec.woodworking are trolls:
>- Best infant formula for newborns
>- Is woodturning considered woodworking?
[snip]
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>I agree. At work I have NNTP filtering, so google is really my only
>option. I use the wreck in the same way that others take smoke breaks.
>
Ummm... what is it you agree with? You snipped the entire context, and nobody
has any idea what you're replying to.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
In article <140120050919501044%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>, dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>damian penney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Don't go filtering GoogleGroups posts. I love their interface and use
>> it exclusively, and yes I've tried numerous other newsreaders.
>
>Personally, I think Google Groups should be under a Usenet Death
>Penalty until they smarten up and start taking abuse complaints
>seriously.
>
I agree. I can't understand their refusal to implement even the most basic
content filtering; for example, any post with the racial slur n****r in either
the title or the body should be dropped, unconditionally. There is *no*
context in which that word is appropriate. And their "Safe Search" filter for
browsing newsgroups isn't worth much, either: it drops posts with offensive
*content* but completely ignores offensive "subject* lines.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Doug Miller wrote:
> I agree. I can't understand their refusal to implement even the most basic
> content filtering; for example, any post with the racial slur n****r in either
> the title or the body should be dropped, unconditionally. There is *no*
> context in which that word is appropriate.
There is in some slang, typically used in inner city areas.
Barry
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> With this particular troll, if you filter for "zzn" in the "from"
> header you will catch all their posts though not the replies from wreck
> members who should know better.
No. He is using free e-mail accounts to create google groups accounts
and then posting from them. He has already moved on to other domains.
PK
Doug Miller wrote:
> So much garbage comes through Google Groups, that it may be necessary to do
> that. Of course, the filters remove those posts only for those people who are
> actually using the filters -- they don't actually affect the news feed.
>
Oh, c'mon, that is completely ridiculous. That is like the ridiculous
assertions that AOL is full of losers. On top of that, you make it sound
like Google is doing some especially poor job, which they are not. In
fact Google is one of the very few do not allow you to set any return
address you want, they are actually more strict.
BTW, there is nothing forged in the headers or elsehere. The troll has
simply put in an email address as his username.
PK
In article <[email protected]>, "damian penney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Don't go filtering GoogleGroups posts. I love their interface and use
>it exclusively, and yes I've tried numerous other newsreaders.
>
So much garbage comes through Google Groups, that it may be necessary to do
that. Of course, the filters remove those posts only for those people who are
actually using the filters -- they don't actually affect the news feed.
So if I update the filters to remove Google Groups, anyone using the filters
will, for good or ill, no longer be able to see any of your posts. Anyone not
using my filters would still be able to see them. If that troubles you,
perhaps you could complain to Google that the fact that they permit garbage to
be posted through their servers is causing people to filter out any content
that came through Google, including your presumably worthwhile posts.
Or you could post through a real newsreader.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <140120050919501044%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>damian penney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't go filtering GoogleGroups posts. I love their interface and use
>>> it exclusively, and yes I've tried numerous other newsreaders.
>>
>>Personally, I think Google Groups should be under a Usenet Death
>>Penalty until they smarten up and start taking abuse complaints
>>seriously.
>>
> I agree. I can't understand their refusal to implement even the most basic
> content filtering; for example, any post with the racial slur n****r in
> either the title or the body should be dropped, unconditionally. There is
> *no* context in which that word is appropriate.
(a) black people often use it in discussions with other black people
(b) a thread discussing, say, the psychological or sociological harm in
racial epithets might very well contain discussion of that particular
epithet.
> And their "Safe Search"
> filter for browsing newsgroups isn't worth much, either: it drops posts
> with offensive *content* but completely ignores offensive "subject* lines.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
>
> > I agree. I can't understand their refusal to implement even the most
> basic
> > content filtering; for example, any post with the racial slur n****r
> in either
> > the title or the body should be dropped, unconditionally. There is
> *no*
> > context in which that word is appropriate. And their "Safe Search"
> filter for
> > browsing newsgroups isn't worth much, either: it drops posts with
> offensive
> > *content* but completely ignores offensive "subject* lines.
> >
>
> It is completely appropriate for discussion of the slur itself
> as well as the etymology of the word.
>
> Tiis is why server-side content filters are always a bad idea.
>
> I know you mean well, but your aproach is identical to the
> famous AOL filter that blocked the breast-cancer survivor's
> mailist forcing them to temporarily change the name of the
> disease to 'hooter cancer' to evade the filtering.
>
> Or AOL's refusal to deliver email sent from Scunthorpe, England.
Amen on the "mass filter". Do a lot of research and presentation work for
the teacher I volunteer with in school. I make extensive use of Google
Images, but the school system, in their ultimate "wisdom" has blocked Google
images because some students were finding "prurient content". I complained,
was told there are "other" image sources. True, but what a PITA to use them.
The kids will find the prurient content on their own anyway.
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.