I've lurked here for a couple of years now. I post occasionally on the
extremely rare occasion that I have something intelligent to add to the
conversation. Unfortunately, compared to most of the regulars in the group,
I know squat about woodorking...and I'm not afraid to admit it. So I
normally try to glean as much as I can from what those who know more than I
do have to say, taken at times with a liberal grain of salt.
<borrowing the soapbox for a second and donning my safety glasses>
As we all know, there have been a cubic ass-ton of trolls roaming the wreck
lately. That's a given. But then again, that's going to be true with
almost any newsgroup. While yes, it does royally suck to have to update the
killfile on a daily basis to keep the troll-du-jour from invading my space,
what has grown to suck even more lately is the rapidly increasing number of
posts to the effect of "this newsgroup is going to hell".
I'm no shrink, nor do I play one on TV, but it would seem to me that by
posting crap like that only serves to encourage these crackheaded trolls.
Put yourself in their mind for a second...if you're out to get under the
skin of a group of people, what better way to confirm that your plan is
working than by reading post after post of "the wreck is going into the
crapper"? Guess what, Einstein...we know we have a troll infestation...we
don't need your color commentary to point that out to us. That's life on
Usenet, dude...get over it. Ignore it and move on. IMHO, the sooner
everyone learns that reporting these morons to Google or ARIN or whatever
governing group is out there won't do anything towards a long-term solution,
the better off we'll all be. I don't think the FBI or any law-enforcement
body is going to take the time to investigate these morons unless they start
making personal threats or take their actions beyond the realm of Usenet.
Responding to trolls or posting about the existance of trolls is no
different than stopping to check out an accident on the highway...it serves
no purpose (other than pissing a bunch of people off) and generally
encourages everyone else to do the same. Turn your head to the forward
position and just drive on by...there's nothing to see here.
Remember...the killfile is your friend. Use it early, use it often.
<Rob jumps off the soapbox directly into his Nomex suit and HANS device>
Rob
Actually, you need an username and password for very few news sites, and
very few mail SMTP servers. I've been on the web since 88, and I don't
think I've ever configured either. ALWAYS had to for retrieving e-mail,
though. But the server software supports all three, as far as I know. As
does most clients (if not all) that I've used. Even if the ISP's started
using the security built into the system, it would improve things, I think.
Clint
"John McCoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clint Neufeld" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:8bZgb.47327$9l5.44512@pd7tw2no:
>
> > What I don't understand is why the news and mail servers are written
> > the way they are. In particular:
> >
> > I need a valid username and password to get my e-mail. That's good,
> > and it works. But I don't need one to send an e-mail (on most
> > systems), or to download or send news messages. Wouldn't it have been
> > easy to implement the same technology throughout?
>
> Actually, you do need a username and password to access almost all
> email and newsservers. The reason there's a problem is twofold:
>
> Firstly, back in the old days when the net was small, servers didn't
> need passwords because the number of asocial people was small, and
> admins were prompt about denying them net access if they didn't
> behave. There's still a few old those old, obsolete servers around,
> serving as sewers for the undesireables.
>
> Secondly, and a much bigger problem, is the existance of "proxies"
> which broadband customers put on their PC's, to allow themselves to
> use the broadband connection from other machines. The authors of
> the proxy software seem to have all been astoundingly devoid of clue,
> and the proxies default to be open to anyone on the net. This allows
> someone to access a mail or news server _using a valid password_ via
> the proxy. Eventually the proxy owner finds out (usually because
> broadband provider cuts him off) and fixes the proxy settings so
> it's not open, but that takes time & theres apparently an unending
> supply of new proxies to serve as sewers.
>
> Side note to bs: ignoring trolls means not replying to them in
> the newsgroup. Reporting them to the source ISP, while often
> ineffective, is a valid & public-spirited thing to do, as long
> as you are technically knowledgable enough to know where to
> complain to (*). For the average user, they're more likely to
> complain to the wrong place, so just ignoring is the best thing
> for them to do.
>
> John
>
> (* the current set are easily enough identifyable as coming
> from Google. Google, while reasonably competent about abuse,
> tend to be very slow to do things)
I'm of the side that you might as well filter them, cause you ain't going to
stop them. If I can filter their crap out of the newsgroup messages, it no
longer affects me. They can post their drivel all they want. I've got
better things to do with my time than trying to track down a bunch of
mis-fits.
<SOAPBOX>
Your analogy of not reporting a crime because it's inconvienent to me is
flawed, if you ask me. I believe it's against the law still in some places
to spit on sidewalks. Am I going to bother going to the police station and
drag a cop out to write up a ticket because someone hawked a loogie?
Probably not. You can if you want to. Me, I'll probably watch where I
step, and continue on with life. So far, it hasn't gotten to the point that
I can't walk on the sidewalk in barefeet yet. If it does get to that point,
then the answers will come from "up there". Individuals reporting other
individuals probably isn't going to solve the problem. The people that we
pay to make decisions and rules will have to inflict new penalties, or
implement new methods of controlling behaviours to make it stop.
</SOAPBOX>
It's not "us against them", with everyone on either the side of the
drivellers or the side of the people reporting them. It's "us against them"
with everyone on the side of the drivellers against the side of the real
newsreaders. You're drawing the line in the wrong place, IMHO. But it
really does tick me off when people reply to the drivel. Do they really
think it's going to make a difference, other than to encourage them? It's
like when people buy things from telemarketers. If people would just stop
buying from telemarketers, they'd go away eventually. It would no longer
make business sense to phone people during supper. But since a percentage
of people fall for it, they continue. But that's a whole nother rant! :)
Clint
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> John,
>
> Maybe I missed something in this thread. I have so many twit filters
turned
> on that maybe there's a post in response to one of mine that made you
think
> I said otherwise otherwise. I agree with your statement - always have.
>
> > Side note to bs: ignoring trolls means not replying to them in the
> newsgroup.
>
> You mileage may vary but I've had a good kill rate with Google this past
> month based on the return emails where they stated they suspended the
users
> account. Doesn't mean they didn't come back but for the 30 seconds it
took
> to forawrd the info to Google, it was worth it to me. Multiply that by
how
> many people that care about this ng and we can make a difference but you
> have to put an effort into it. Must disagree with the statement about
> ignoring them and I've voiced my opinion on that - several times.
>
> The old statement about "If you're not part of the solution, then you're
> part of the problem" comes to mind. Where do you stand?
>
> Bob S.
>
>
> >Reporting them to the source ISP, while often
> > ineffective, is a valid & public-spirited thing to do, as long
> > as you are technically knowledgable enough to know where to
> > complain to (*). For the average user, they're more likely to
> > complain to the wrong place, so just ignoring is the best thing
> > for them to do.
> >
> > John
> >
> > (* the current set are easily enough identifyable as coming
> > from Google. Google, while reasonably competent about abuse,
> > tend to be very slow to do things)
>
>
Most ISP's keep folks not in their ip blocks off their nntp servers by
allowing access only from a particular ip address range. I've see very damn
few SMTP server accounts that weren't both login and password protected ..
not to be argumentative, but it's almost unheard of to not do so.
Nice trick ... Tim Berners-Lee wrote "Information Management: A Proposal",
in 1989, and the first web browser wasn't developed until 1990. ;>)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"Clint Neufeld" wrote in message
> Actually, you need an username and password for very few news sites, and
> very few mail SMTP servers. I've been on the web since 88, and I don't
> think I've ever configured either.
No your not really missing something. It largely happens to do with
Computer Geeks Shortsightedness. I mean hey we still have 640k memory
blocks on our hardware for the same reason. No one had enough foresight to
ask "what if we have x billion people using this system".
--
Young Carpenter
"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"
{Put the fiddler back "on" the roof to reply}
"Clint Neufeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8bZgb.47327$9l5.44512@pd7tw2no...
> What I don't understand is why the news and mail servers are written the
way
> they are. In particular:
>
> I need a valid username and password to get my e-mail. That's good, and
it
> works. But I don't need one to send an e-mail (on most systems), or to
> download or send news messages. Wouldn't it have been easy to implement
the
> same technology throughout?
>
> I'm sure there's something I'm missing on this, logic-wise. But it seems
> like an easy fix. Then you just need to get all the ISP's to roll out the
> new server software! :)
>
> Clint
>
> "bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Rob,
> >
> > Nothing extreme about it, statement of fact. So let's not agree to
> disagree
> > and try to come up with a better way.
> >
> > Bob S.
> >
> >
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
I don't believe that's a double negative. "Make believe" and
"fantasy" are adjectives of land. Probably should have a comma after
"believe".
Similar to "clear, blue sky.
Renata
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:15:15 GMT, "bs" <[email protected]> wrote:
--snip--
>...A make believe fantasy land?
>Traditional grammar holds that double negatives are often combined to form
>an affirmative statement. Readers can therefore interpret the sentence "make
>believe fantasy land" as an affirmative statement meaning, "It must be real"
>unless they are prompted to view it as dialect or nonstandard speech.
>
--snip--
>
>Bob S.
>
bs wrote:
> Clint,
>
> Geeeeesuusss.....talk about stretching an analogy - spitting on the
> sidewalks now. I personally don't care what you do or not but you're in the
> camp with those that always want to let someone else fix the problem. Much
> easier for you to look the other way, don't want to get involved, afraid to
> get his hands dirty, and always an excuse of why something can't be fixed.
>
> That's fine...each to his own, I was just hoping to find some support from
> some people that have a spine in their backside and willing to try to do
> something. But with your defeatist attitude - they'll always win, no doubt
> about it.
>
>
Bob,
How does someone with spine in his backside sit? I agree with you in
spirit, but having fought the good fight, and lost for the most part,
for too many years, I only fight now when it concerns me or mine. This
is pretty much a bunch of bullshit and it will pass. Not worth getting
too pissed about.
Hank
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Yeah, that's it. I'm shaking in my cosmic space boots cause someone posted
nasty words in a newsgroup I read. Please sign me up for the wimp list.
BTW, libel is a civil action in most jurisdications, AFAIK. Not criminal.
So if JOAT wants to sue them to recover damages against his reputation, he
can do that. Threats are a different thing entirely. To be perfectly
honest, I never bothered to read any of the drivel that got posted. Why
anyone would bother to even open up such obvious garbage is beyond me.
Clint
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clint,
>
> One last response to yours. If you go back and look at some of the posts,
> and I'll use those that were directed at JOAT recently as an example, they
> were libelous - and not just drivel. Granted, most of the stuff here is
> garbage and just irritating and not criminal in content but we have seen
> posts in the past that were threatening and do constitute criminal
behavior.
>
> As an example, if I said "Go stuff it in your hat", nothing you can do but
> if I said, "I'm going to come after you and stuff it in your hat", that's
a
> threat. Form a pattern of doing that and you can be in trouble even though
> you didn't follow-thru on the threat.
>
> Again, if you're afraid to do something to help, that's fine, thankfully
> there are others that feel otherwise and will help to clean up this mess
> that you're willing to live with.
>
>
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> them. By filtering them out, you don't even have to have will power;
> they just "cease to exist".
>
I'm starting to move from the "Ignore them and they'll go away" to the
"Let's hunt them down and beat the crap out'a them" camp.
Over 10+ years on Usenet, and I don't think I have the anecdotal data to
support the "ignore them and they'll go away" theory. These are disturbed
people and I believe a large percentage of them take delight in just
posting. They know the 'net is large enough, the community diverse enough
that they'll annoy someone.
That said - Grandma always told me to never argue with a Zealot. Similar
reasoning applies.
Don't know what she would'a said if I had pounded the snot out'a one...
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:22:16 -0400, "Rob Walters"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:12:19 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
>> wrote:
>> And there's the unusually clever trolls out there...like Rob Walters.
>>
>>
>> Have a nice week...
>>
>> Trent
>>
>> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
>
>Now there's a first...being called a troll.
>
>Perhaps one should do some research before you start pointing fingers, as I
>have posted to this group in the past, when appropriate. I have also been a
>_legitimate_ contributor in several different newsgroups over the past eight
>or nine years...Google it if you don't believe me. And, Trent, how many
>trolls would post using a real e-mail address? Yes, it may be
>[email protected], but if you'd like to check up on that, the mail
>_will_ get delivered and yes, I am the owner of that domain.
>
>Perhaps you assumed that my silence after the first few posts would indicate
>that I was trolling. Granted, BS and I went back and forth, but its obvious
>that neither one of us is going to make the other change their minds. I
>really didn't see a profound need to elevate the thread to "mailbox
>baseball" status.
>
>And to answer the question to your other post, yes, I do plan on posting
>here as long as there is a wreck...at least until I do indeed die...in the
>physical sense at least.
>
>You have a nice week too...
>
>Rob
>
I could only think of 2 reasons why you would start this thread, Rob.
Troll was the complimentary one.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Clint,
One last response to yours. If you go back and look at some of the posts,
and I'll use those that were directed at JOAT recently as an example, they
were libelous - and not just drivel. Granted, most of the stuff here is
garbage and just irritating and not criminal in content but we have seen
posts in the past that were threatening and do constitute criminal behavior.
As an example, if I said "Go stuff it in your hat", nothing you can do but
if I said, "I'm going to come after you and stuff it in your hat", that's a
threat. Form a pattern of doing that and you can be in trouble even though
you didn't follow-thru on the threat.
Again, if you're afraid to do something to help, that's fine, thankfully
there are others that feel otherwise and will help to clean up this mess
that you're willing to live with.
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:12:19 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
> wrote:
> And there's the unusually clever trolls out there...like Rob Walters.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Now there's a first...being called a troll.
Perhaps one should do some research before you start pointing fingers, as I
have posted to this group in the past, when appropriate. I have also been a
_legitimate_ contributor in several different newsgroups over the past eight
or nine years...Google it if you don't believe me. And, Trent, how many
trolls would post using a real e-mail address? Yes, it may be
[email protected], but if you'd like to check up on that, the mail
_will_ get delivered and yes, I am the owner of that domain.
Perhaps you assumed that my silence after the first few posts would indicate
that I was trolling. Granted, BS and I went back and forth, but its obvious
that neither one of us is going to make the other change their minds. I
really didn't see a profound need to elevate the thread to "mailbox
baseball" status.
And to answer the question to your other post, yes, I do plan on posting
here as long as there is a wreck...at least until I do indeed die...in the
physical sense at least.
You have a nice week too...
Rob
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:08:06 GMT, "bs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rob,
>
>Couldn't disagree more with your logic. "Turn your head and put your
>blinders on and the problem will go away." Or more technically correct,
>turn on your filter and live with it. Not my style - just the same as I
>wouldn't put up with someone committing a crime and then looking the other
>way just cause I would be inconvenienced by reporting it. Thanks, I'll go
>the extra mile and you wimps can do your ignorant is bliss thing.
>
>Reporting them may not be a long-term solution but it is better than doing
>nothing. Eventually, the ISP's will have to take a stance on this if we
>pressure them enough. I made an earlier post today about not seeing some of
>the old mentors around any more and if you've been around here for a few
>years, you'll know who I mean. Rarely do they get involved in a thread now
>and that's a shame. That is a real impact on the collective group and
>filters won't bring those contributors back. This was an educational forum
>that has been degraded because of some idiots, mental cases and real social
>outcasts that haven't a clue what life is really about and could care less.
>
Are you going to post here until the day you die? lol
Trolls don't move people on...they just do it by themselves. I
mean...if they're adults. Its just normal human nature.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Must be an English major egging me on..... and if ya ain't careful I'm gonna
sick ole Tom Waston on yer butt and let him give ya proper dressin down
right here in public and all....
To respond to your questions though:
...A make believe fantasy land?
Traditional grammar holds that double negatives are often combined to form
an affirmative statement. Readers can therefore interpret the sentence "make
believe fantasy land" as an affirmative statement meaning, "It must be real"
unless they are prompted to view it as dialect or nonstandard speech.
...As for More to the point,
Concerning the important or essential issue, as in "More to the point,
people will respond to the posts". This usage is often put as come or get to
the point, meaning " to address the important issue." For example, Please
come to the point; or Do you suppose he'll ever get to the point of all
this? I was jerking on Dave's chain but obviously your humor level is real
low and you're thinking that the trolls have gotten to me.
As for proving its a given,
Look in the mirror Mike. What motivates them - is trolls like yourself and
I'd say that's a given after reading your post.
Bob S.
"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Then again, you folks on the left coast just elected another "real"
actor to
> > run that "make believe" fantasy land you live in. So Dave, next war,
you
> > guy's gonna furnish all the virtual-reality soldiers too... Your life
needs
> > a filter...
>
> A make believe fantasy land? Is that like imitation synthetic wood?
>
> While I agree it's ludicrous that another actor has been voted in as
> governor of CA, I recall (no pun intended) that the 'first' actor did
> pretty well nationally. Maybe we live in a make believe fantasy land
> country.
>
> > More to the point Dave....
>
> *More* to the point? You mean the first part of your post was even
> remotely to the point?
>
> > people will respond to the posts - that's a given
>
> Why is that a given? Are they driven by powers beyond their control?
>
> > and the trolls won't go away until we force them away.
>
> Good luck. Seriously. If you can get rid of them that way, great. I
> certainly don't object to you're making the attempt. Hell, I don't
> even object to you're calling everybody who disagrees with your
> approach "wimps". But I still think that the prime motivation for the
> trolls is getting people all worked up. It seems they've accomplished
> that objective.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike
In article <[email protected]>, "bs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Then again, you folks on the left coast just elected another "real" actor to
>run that "make believe" fantasy land you live in. So Dave, next war, you
>guy's gonna furnish all the virtual-reality soldiers too... Your life needs
>a filter...
>
>More to the point Dave....people will respond to the posts - that's a given
>and the trolls won't go away until we force them away.
>
The only way to force a troll to go away is to STOP FEEDING IT.
Your continued posts complaining about the trolls are just more troll food.
Report them all you want, I don't care. But stop posting about them, dammit.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
What I don't understand is why the news and mail servers are written the way
they are. In particular:
I need a valid username and password to get my e-mail. That's good, and it
works. But I don't need one to send an e-mail (on most systems), or to
download or send news messages. Wouldn't it have been easy to implement the
same technology throughout?
I'm sure there's something I'm missing on this, logic-wise. But it seems
like an easy fix. Then you just need to get all the ISP's to roll out the
new server software! :)
Clint
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rob,
>
> Nothing extreme about it, statement of fact. So let's not agree to
disagree
> and try to come up with a better way.
>
> Bob S.
>
>
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:37:12 GMT, "bs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Then again, you folks on the left coast just elected another "real" actor to
>run that "make believe" fantasy land you live in. So Dave, next war, you
>guy's gonna furnish all the virtual-reality soldiers too... Your life needs
>a filter...
>
>More to the point Dave....people will respond to the posts - that's a given
>and the trolls won't go away until we force them away.
New trolls are being born every day. Some go...others take their
place.
And you can easily spot them...
They top post! lol
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Sorry, Swingman (and Todd) are correct. I registered for university in 1988
in Comp Sci, and have been on the INTERNET since then. Not the web.
Clint
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Most ISP's keep folks not in their ip blocks off their nntp servers by
> > allowing access only from a particular ip address range. I've see very
> damn
> > few SMTP server accounts that weren't both login and password protected
..
> > not to be argumentative, but it's almost unheard of to not do so.
> >
> > Nice trick ... Tim Berners-Lee wrote "Information Management: A
Proposal",
> > in 1989, and the first web browser wasn't developed until 1990. ;>)
>
> Since we're already OT, I'll chime in. I'm sure what Clint meant was that
> he's been on the *internet* since 1988, not the web. I know some people
use
> those terms interchangeably, but they aren't, of course. A better trick
> would be Berners-Lee had the world's first web server up in 1986 (running
on
> a NeXT, btw) and according to you, couldn't access it until four years
> later. I'm going to guess (I don't know the year offhand) 1990 was the
year
> that NCSA developed Mosaic. Perhaps Mosaic was the first browser that's
> similar to what we have now, but there was software going back to 1986
that
> would technically be classified as a web browser.
>
> todd
>
>
Filtering is no different than moving to a part of town you feel
comfortable in. The NG's are much more pleasant with some judicious
filtering out of the nonsense. If NO ONE responds to the trolls they
wont get the attention they crave. Resist the temptation to engage
them. By filtering them out, you don't even have to have will power;
they just "cease to exist".
dave
bs wrote:
> Rob,
>
> Couldn't disagree more with your logic. "Turn your head and put your
> blinders on and the problem will go away." Or more technically correct,
> turn on your filter and live with it. Not my style - just the same as I
> wouldn't put up with someone committing a crime and then looking the other
> way just cause I would be inconvenienced by reporting it. Thanks, I'll go
> the extra mile and you wimps can do your ignorant is bliss thing.
>
> Reporting them may not be a long-term solution but it is better than doing
> nothing. Eventually, the ISP's will have to take a stance on this if we
> pressure them enough. I made an earlier post today about not seeing some of
> the old mentors around any more and if you've been around here for a few
> years, you'll know who I mean. Rarely do they get involved in a thread now
> and that's a shame. That is a real impact on the collective group and
> filters won't bring those contributors back. This was an educational forum
> that has been degraded because of some idiots, mental cases and real social
> outcasts that haven't a clue what life is really about and could care less.
>
>
>
>
>
In article <8bZgb.47327$9l5.44512@pd7tw2no>, [email protected]
says...
> But it seems like an easy fix.
It's always easy to the one who doesn't have to do it ... :-)
> Then you just need to get all the ISP's to roll out the
> new server software! :)
Aye, and that's the problem. If you change the basic protocol then you
have to either:
- make it backward compatible (which ends up accomplishing nothing
since the spammers ands trolls just keep using older stuff), or
- get every single ISP on the planet to switch over SIMULTANIOUSLY. Oh
yeah, and all the clients have to change at the same time because the
program interface they expect has just changed. Oh, and the embedded
software in cellphones and PDA's that can handle email; those have to
change as well.
It would make the Great Renaming look like trivial middle school maths
exercise. (Okay, that may have been a bit too obscure of a reference
:-)
The protocols are insufficient since they were written decades ago and
the problems we're seeing now occurred on only the tiniest of scales.
Of course, back then you had to be fairly technically astute to access
the Internet; nowadays there are apps that can be utilized by plant scum
... and it shows in the quality of postings.
There is a fair amount of effort going into proposals to address this
issue, but the raw scale of effort required to implement the change
hangs like a sword of Damocles over the whole operation.
--
http://www.frii.com/~charlesj/woodworking
==============================================================
Not an HP spokesman | Business email: [email protected]
Hewlett-Packard Company | Personal email: [email protected]
Loveland, Colorado, USA | ICQ: 29610755 AIM: LovelandCharles
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Charles Jones wrote:
>
> > It would make the Great Renaming look like trivial middle school maths
> > exercise. (Okay, that may have been a bit too obscure of a reference
> > :-)
>
> Yeah... What was that?
It's a tale from the Dark Ages of Usenet; back when the mists were
thick, UUCP moved data from machine to machine and 300 baud was a hot
connection speed.
Usenet had taken shape in 1979 as the Unix User Network (hence, UseNet)
and in the years leading up to 1985 there was little structure or logic
to the organization of newsgroups. In addition, transmission costs were
significant. Therefore, many systems administrators wanted to be able
to propagate only the groups that they deemed "worthy". There were
three hierarchies, net.* for unmoderated discussions, mod.* for
moderated and fa.* which carried ARPANET traffic.
As always seems the case; the problem started with net.flame and
net.religion. Net.flame was where the bozos hung out (IMO :-). They
engaged in flame wars just like today ... well, no; not just like today.
The old flame wars tended to be articulate and biting. Today the flame
wars are more scatological. Never thought I would be pining for an old-
style of flame war ... :-/
Anyway, the Europeans deemed net.flame and net.religion to be "fluff"
and did not want to pay for the transmission of these groups across the
transatlantic cable. Fine. However, the problem was that
administrators had to custom edit a config file to exclude each group
that met their particular "fluffyness" quotient. As the number of
groups grew, so did the effort in maintaining these configs. Something
had to be done.
And so, something was done, the Great Renaming. A new hierarchy was
developed; the beloved rec, comp, talk and soc we know today. And every
single group was moved from the old structure to the new. It took the
backbone from March 1986 to July of 1987 to complete.
> What's going on, briefly?
The best single reference is the Internet Engineering Task Force, which
has an Anti-Spam Research Group. They have studied a number of
authentication ideas. Their focus (as their name implies) is Spam, but
many of the technologies would apply to NNTP messages as well.
There is some good information at http://www.imc.org/imc-spam/index.html
as well.
CharlesJ
--
========================================================================
Charles Jones | Works at HP, | email: [email protected]
Hewlett-Packard | doesn't speak | ICQ: 29610755
Loveland, Colorado | for HP | AIM: LovelandCharles
USA | |Jabber: [email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, "bs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rob,
>
>Couldn't disagree more with your logic. "Turn your head and put your
>blinders on and the problem will go away." Or more technically correct,
>turn on your filter and live with it. Not my style - just the same as I
>wouldn't put up with someone committing a crime and then looking the other
>way just cause I would be inconvenienced by reporting it. Thanks, I'll go
>the extra mile and you wimps can do your ignorant is bliss thing.
>
>Reporting them may not be a long-term solution but it is better than doing
>nothing.
Fine - report them if you want. But SHUT UP! When you continue talking about
them, you encourage them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I could only think of 2 reasons why you would start this thread, Rob.
>
> Troll was the complimentary one.
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>
> Trent
>
> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Well, I'm more than willing to hear what your theory would be for the second
reason.
Perhaps I am at fault for stating the obvious. However, just as you
expressed your opinion, I'm free to express mine. I saw something going on
over and over and over again and said something about it. I didn't do it
with the intent to offend anyone, I don't feel that I was overly rude, I
didn't call anybody out, and I don't think the scenarios I described were
imaginary. I didn't expect everyone to stand up and sing my praises when I
posted that, as should be clearly evident by the wording of the post. Nor
was I out to start a flame war. I have kept every response I have made
quite civil, especially considering some of the mudslinging I have seen take
place in the past. Nor did I intend to drag my response to your response
out into a eight million message thread in and of itself. However, I did
feel the need to defend myself after being called a troll...and I don't
think, given recent events, that anyone could blame me for that.
Now, if it would make you feel better, I'd be more than happy to drag this
all back on topic by letting you take a swing at me with a stick of
Jummywood.
Rob
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Most ISP's keep folks not in their ip blocks off their nntp servers by
> allowing access only from a particular ip address range. I've see very
damn
> few SMTP server accounts that weren't both login and password protected ..
> not to be argumentative, but it's almost unheard of to not do so.
>
> Nice trick ... Tim Berners-Lee wrote "Information Management: A Proposal",
> in 1989, and the first web browser wasn't developed until 1990. ;>)
Since we're already OT, I'll chime in. I'm sure what Clint meant was that
he's been on the *internet* since 1988, not the web. I know some people use
those terms interchangeably, but they aren't, of course. A better trick
would be Berners-Lee had the world's first web server up in 1986 (running on
a NeXT, btw) and according to you, couldn't access it until four years
later. I'm going to guess (I don't know the year offhand) 1990 was the year
that NCSA developed Mosaic. Perhaps Mosaic was the first browser that's
similar to what we have now, but there was software going back to 1986 that
would technically be classified as a web browser.
todd
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rob,
>
> Couldn't disagree more with your logic. "Turn your head and put your
> blinders on and the problem will go away." Or more technically correct,
> turn on your filter and live with it. Not my style - just the same as I
> wouldn't put up with someone committing a crime and then looking the other
> way just cause I would be inconvenienced by reporting it. Thanks, I'll go
> the extra mile and you wimps can do your ignorant is bliss thing.
>
> Reporting them may not be a long-term solution but it is better than doing
> nothing. Eventually, the ISP's will have to take a stance on this if we
> pressure them enough. I made an earlier post today about not seeing some
of
> the old mentors around any more and if you've been around here for a few
> years, you'll know who I mean. Rarely do they get involved in a thread
now
> and that's a shame. That is a real impact on the collective group and
> filters won't bring those contributors back. This was an educational
forum
> that has been degraded because of some idiots, mental cases and real
social
> outcasts that haven't a clue what life is really about and could care
less.
>
I think your analogy is a bit extreme. I equate the trolls to situations
little kids get into...the "Mom, he's picking on me" type of situation. If
you let the bully know that he is getting to you, the harassment will never
stop. Are they annoying, yes. Are they rude, definitely. Are they
disruptive, without question. Yes, they are breaking rules of "netiquitte"
by cross-posting garbage to completely unrelated newsgroups, but I think
drawing a parallel between trolling and a serious crime is a bit over the
top.
Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but I must take
exception to the term "wimps". Not that it make a hill of beans difference
to you or anyone else, but I have indeed tried to do my part to exact some
sort of change in regards to both trolls and spam. But the simple fact of
the matter is that with the internet economy being the way it is these days,
the only thing that is going to change the stance of any major ISP regarding
abuse issues of this nature is money. ISPs have had to downsize to the
point that they barely have the staff to maintain their infrastructure, let
alone make any attempt to research who is posting garbage to a Usenet group.
If you don't believe that 90% of the ISPs are sending abuse complaints
directly to the bit bucket, check out some of the groups on
news.spamcop.net. And as most of us are probably not doing business with
the ISPs hosting these idiots, we have no leverage against them. And, as is
the nature of the internet, a troll can be posting from any number of
servers under any number of aliases. Yes, they can be tracked down, but
there is an almost infinite number of ways for them to continue their
shenanigans. You are going to have to go a lot of extra miles to change the
corporate mentality of many of the big ISPs. Feel free to do so,
however...I have more then enough frustration in my life without firing off
abuse reports to ISPs that route them straight to /dev/null. The spammers
are a different thread altogether...
As such, the main point of my post was to point out that if you continue
posting about how the trolls have ruined the newsgroup, you are in fact
feeding into the very mentality that the trolls are trying to force upon
you. It doesn't do any good whatsoever other then to feed into the trolls'
desire to piss people off and disrupt the normal goings-on in their target
newsgroups. No, perhaps trying to ignore them _isn't_ the most appropriate
action to take, but neither is feeding in to their negativity. And in the
environment that is Usenet, that's just part of the game and has been so for
a long, long time.
I would have to agree, however, that many of the once-regular contributors
of the group are either now lurking in the shadows or gone, and that is
indeed a shame. I have learned a lot from these guys/gals and enjoyed
reading what they have had to say, on-topic or not, even if I didn't always
agree with what they had to say.
Rob
Me stretching an analogy? You're the one equating posting drivel in
newsgroups to committing a crime.
Clint
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clint,
>
> Geeeeesuusss.....talk about stretching an analogy - spitting on the
> sidewalks now. I personally don't care what you do or not but you're in
the
> camp with those that always want to let someone else fix the problem.
Much
> easier for you to look the other way, don't want to get involved, afraid
to
> get his hands dirty, and always an excuse of why something can't be fixed.
>
> That's fine...each to his own, I was just hoping to find some support from
> some people that have a spine in their backside and willing to try to do
> something. But with your defeatist attitude - they'll always win, no
doubt
> about it.
>
>
Rob,
Couldn't disagree more with your logic. "Turn your head and put your
blinders on and the problem will go away." Or more technically correct,
turn on your filter and live with it. Not my style - just the same as I
wouldn't put up with someone committing a crime and then looking the other
way just cause I would be inconvenienced by reporting it. Thanks, I'll go
the extra mile and you wimps can do your ignorant is bliss thing.
Reporting them may not be a long-term solution but it is better than doing
nothing. Eventually, the ISP's will have to take a stance on this if we
pressure them enough. I made an earlier post today about not seeing some of
the old mentors around any more and if you've been around here for a few
years, you'll know who I mean. Rarely do they get involved in a thread now
and that's a shame. That is a real impact on the collective group and
filters won't bring those contributors back. This was an educational forum
that has been degraded because of some idiots, mental cases and real social
outcasts that haven't a clue what life is really about and could care less.
"Clint Neufeld" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:8bZgb.47327$9l5.44512@pd7tw2no:
> What I don't understand is why the news and mail servers are written
> the way they are. In particular:
>
> I need a valid username and password to get my e-mail. That's good,
> and it works. But I don't need one to send an e-mail (on most
> systems), or to download or send news messages. Wouldn't it have been
> easy to implement the same technology throughout?
Actually, you do need a username and password to access almost all
email and newsservers. The reason there's a problem is twofold:
Firstly, back in the old days when the net was small, servers didn't
need passwords because the number of asocial people was small, and
admins were prompt about denying them net access if they didn't
behave. There's still a few old those old, obsolete servers around,
serving as sewers for the undesireables.
Secondly, and a much bigger problem, is the existance of "proxies"
which broadband customers put on their PC's, to allow themselves to
use the broadband connection from other machines. The authors of
the proxy software seem to have all been astoundingly devoid of clue,
and the proxies default to be open to anyone on the net. This allows
someone to access a mail or news server _using a valid password_ via
the proxy. Eventually the proxy owner finds out (usually because
broadband provider cuts him off) and fixes the proxy settings so
it's not open, but that takes time & theres apparently an unending
supply of new proxies to serve as sewers.
Side note to bs: ignoring trolls means not replying to them in
the newsgroup. Reporting them to the source ISP, while often
ineffective, is a valid & public-spirited thing to do, as long
as you are technically knowledgable enough to know where to
complain to (*). For the average user, they're more likely to
complain to the wrong place, so just ignoring is the best thing
for them to do.
John
(* the current set are easily enough identifyable as coming
from Google. Google, while reasonably competent about abuse,
tend to be very slow to do things)
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> John,
>
> Maybe I missed something in this thread. I have so many twit filters
> turned on that maybe there's a post in response to one of mine that
> made you think I said otherwise otherwise. I agree with your
> statement - always have.
>
>> Side note to bs: ignoring trolls means not replying to them in the
> newsgroup.
That was directed more at other readers, who may have misunderstood
your "don't ignore" comment to mean they should reply to trolls.
The point I wanted to make to you was, that not all readers are
capable of complaining accurately, and inaccurate complaints are
worse than none. The current troll is pretty simple, because
he comes thru Google, but in other cases it can be quite tricky
to identify where the spam/troll posts come from.
John
"Clint Neufeld" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:0f2hb.50833$6C4.30149@pd7tw1no:
> Actually, you need an username and password for very few news sites,
> and very few mail SMTP servers.
Almost all news servers either use an explicit username/password, or
require you to access them from an IP which has some form of
authentication. I'm aware of about 100 servers which allow read
access without a username/password or other authentication. About
10 of those allow posting (and they have poor connectivity, since
news admins in general view the idea very negatively).
SMTP servers are generally set up to accept connections only from
other known SMTP servers, or from IP's which have previously
authenticated themselves to a POP server (*) (which is usually by
username/password). POP before SMTP has been the common setup
for maybe 5 or 6 years; before that SMTP servers were often not
protected.
John
(* for the benefit of those not into such things, the POP server is
the part that handles reading mail)
Then again, you folks on the left coast just elected another "real" actor to
run that "make believe" fantasy land you live in. So Dave, next war, you
guy's gonna furnish all the virtual-reality soldiers too... Your life needs
a filter...
More to the point Dave....people will respond to the posts - that's a given
and the trolls won't go away until we force them away.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Filtering is no different than moving to a part of town you feel
> comfortable in. The NG's are much more pleasant with some judicious
> filtering out of the nonsense. If NO ONE responds to the trolls they
> wont get the attention they crave. Resist the temptation to engage
> them. By filtering them out, you don't even have to have will power;
> they just "cease to exist".
>
> dave
Very few who there at the time would use the term interchangeably as a mater
of course. According to T B-L himself, he did not write the first web
browser until 1990 ... in his own words:
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html
... and MA didn't write the first version of Mosaic until 1992.
Time messes with folk's heads ... that's why historians make the big bucks.
:)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/21/03
"todd" wrote in message
> Since we're already OT, I'll chime in. I'm sure what Clint meant was that
> he's been on the *internet* since 1988, not the web. I know some people
use
> those terms interchangeably, but they aren't, of course. A better trick
> would be Berners-Lee had the world's first web server up in 1986 (running
on
> a NeXT, btw) and according to you, couldn't access it until four years
> later. I'm going to guess (I don't know the year offhand) 1990 was the
year
> that NCSA developed Mosaic. Perhaps Mosaic was the first browser that's
> similar to what we have now, but there was software going back to 1986
that
> would technically be classified as a web browser.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:07:03 -0600, Charles Jones <[email protected]>
wrote:
>As always seems the case; the problem started with net.flame and
>net.religion. Net.flame was where the bozos hung out (IMO :-). They
>engaged in flame wars just like today ... well, no; not just like today.
>The old flame wars tended to be articulate and biting. Today the flame
>wars are more scatological. Never thought I would be pining for an old-
>style of flame war ... :-/
Some of the old flame wars really were entertaining.
Barry
Charles Jones wrote:
> It would make the Great Renaming look like trivial middle school maths
> exercise. (Okay, that may have been a bit too obscure of a reference
> :-)
Yeah... What was that?
> The protocols are insufficient since they were written decades ago and
> the problems we're seeing now occurred on only the tiniest of scales.
> Of course, back then you had to be fairly technically astute to access
> the Internet; nowadays there are apps that can be utilized by plant
> scum ... and it shows in the quality of postings.
>
> There is a fair amount of effort going into proposals to address this
> issue, but the raw scale of effort required to implement the change
> hangs like a sword of Damocles over the whole operation.
What's going on, briefly?
Thanks.
-- Mark
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Then again, you folks on the left coast just elected another "real" actor to
> run that "make believe" fantasy land you live in. So Dave, next war, you
> guy's gonna furnish all the virtual-reality soldiers too... Your life needs
> a filter...
A make believe fantasy land? Is that like imitation synthetic wood?
While I agree it's ludicrous that another actor has been voted in as
governor of CA, I recall (no pun intended) that the 'first' actor did
pretty well nationally. Maybe we live in a make believe fantasy land
country.
> More to the point Dave....
*More* to the point? You mean the first part of your post was even
remotely to the point?
> people will respond to the posts - that's a given
Why is that a given? Are they driven by powers beyond their control?
> and the trolls won't go away until we force them away.
Good luck. Seriously. If you can get rid of them that way, great. I
certainly don't object to you're making the attempt. Hell, I don't
even object to you're calling everybody who disagrees with your
approach "wimps". But I still think that the prime motivation for the
trolls is getting people all worked up. It seems they've accomplished
that objective.
Cheers,
Mike
"bs" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Must be an English major egging me on..... and if ya ain't careful I'm gonna
> sick ole Tom Waston on yer butt and let him give ya proper dressin down
> right here in public and all....
Yeah that's it. I'm an English major cruising Usenet looking for
grammatical errors to correct.
> To respond to your questions though:
>
> ...A make believe fantasy land?
> Traditional grammar holds that double negatives are often combined to form
> an affirmative statement. Readers can therefore interpret the sentence "make
> believe fantasy land" as an affirmative statement meaning, "It must be real"
> unless they are prompted to view it as dialect or nonstandard speech.
Sorry, I still don't understand the point you're making. Please
explain the relevance to the topic at hand.
> ...As for More to the point,
> Concerning the important or essential issue, as in "More to the point,
> people will respond to the posts". This usage is often put as come or get to
> the point, meaning " to address the important issue." For example, Please
> come to the point; or Do you suppose he'll ever get to the point of all
> this? I was jerking on Dave's chain but obviously your humor level is real
> low and you're thinking that the trolls have gotten to me.
No, I didn't think the trolls had gotten to you but I confess that
your humor did go over my head. My mistake. I've reread your post
and still don't see the humor part. Please enlighten me.
> As for proving its a given,
> Look in the mirror Mike. What motivates them - is trolls like yourself and
> I'd say that's a given after reading your post.
Really? The latest outbreak of trolling was motivated by me and
people like me? Interesting assessment. But I'm sorry to break the
news to you that I ain't trolling.
You called anybody who doesn't adopt your hunt-down-the-trolls
approach "wimps". That's a pretty shiny lure but I didn't bite it at
first. You later rebaited your hook with an irrelevant comment about
California politics that I took hook, line, and sinker. But, alas,
that was apparently not a troll but was just humor that went over my
head. I think I might have been redeemed but I'm not sure. Hmmmmm,
humor-impaired vs. easily-trollable, which one is worse? Usenet is so
stressful!
Cheers,
Mike
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:47:56 -0400, "Rob Walters"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Trent©" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I could only think of 2 reasons why you would start this thread, Rob.
>>
>> Troll was the complimentary one.
>>
>>
>> Have a nice week...
>>
>> Trent
>>
>> Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
>
>Well, I'm more than willing to hear what your theory would be for the second
>reason.
>
>Perhaps I am at fault for stating the obvious. However, just as you
>expressed your opinion, I'm free to express mine. I saw something going on
>over and over and over again and said something about it. I didn't do it
>with the intent to offend anyone, I don't feel that I was overly rude, I
>didn't call anybody out, and I don't think the scenarios I described were
>imaginary. I didn't expect everyone to stand up and sing my praises when I
>posted that, as should be clearly evident by the wording of the post. Nor
>was I out to start a flame war. I have kept every response I have made
>quite civil, especially considering some of the mudslinging I have seen take
>place in the past. Nor did I intend to drag my response to your response
>out into a eight million message thread in and of itself. However, I did
>feel the need to defend myself after being called a troll...and I don't
>think, given recent events, that anyone could blame me for that.
>
>Now, if it would make you feel better, I'd be more than happy to drag this
>all back on topic by letting you take a swing at me with a stick of
>Jummywood.
>
>Rob
>
This IS working for you, isn't it, Rob?
GOOD JOB!!!
Just look at the posts you've generated on this one. And you STILL
keep ME hooked! lol
Jolly good job.
Now...yer turn. That's the way it works, right?! lol
Let's try not to let this one die too soon.
Go ahead...yer turn.
P.S. There's STILL only one of two reasons why someone would post
something controversial and off-topic within a newsgroup.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
Clint,
Geeeeesuusss.....talk about stretching an analogy - spitting on the
sidewalks now. I personally don't care what you do or not but you're in the
camp with those that always want to let someone else fix the problem. Much
easier for you to look the other way, don't want to get involved, afraid to
get his hands dirty, and always an excuse of why something can't be fixed.
That's fine...each to his own, I was just hoping to find some support from
some people that have a spine in their backside and willing to try to do
something. But with your defeatist attitude - they'll always win, no doubt
about it.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 22:12:19 GMT, [email protected] (Doug Miller)
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, "bs" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Then again, you folks on the left coast just elected another "real" actor to
>>run that "make believe" fantasy land you live in. So Dave, next war, you
>>guy's gonna furnish all the virtual-reality soldiers too... Your life needs
>>a filter...
>>
>>More to the point Dave....people will respond to the posts - that's a given
>>and the trolls won't go away until we force them away.
>>
>The only way to force a troll to go away is to STOP FEEDING IT.
>
>Your continued posts complaining about the trolls are just more troll food.
>Report them all you want, I don't care. But stop posting about them, dammit.
And there's the unusually clever trolls out there...like Rob Walters.
Have a nice week...
Trent
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
John,
Maybe I missed something in this thread. I have so many twit filters turned
on that maybe there's a post in response to one of mine that made you think
I said otherwise otherwise. I agree with your statement - always have.
> Side note to bs: ignoring trolls means not replying to them in the
newsgroup.
You mileage may vary but I've had a good kill rate with Google this past
month based on the return emails where they stated they suspended the users
account. Doesn't mean they didn't come back but for the 30 seconds it took
to forawrd the info to Google, it was worth it to me. Multiply that by how
many people that care about this ng and we can make a difference but you
have to put an effort into it. Must disagree with the statement about
ignoring them and I've voiced my opinion on that - several times.
The old statement about "If you're not part of the solution, then you're
part of the problem" comes to mind. Where do you stand?
Bob S.
>Reporting them to the source ISP, while often
> ineffective, is a valid & public-spirited thing to do, as long
> as you are technically knowledgable enough to know where to
> complain to (*). For the average user, they're more likely to
> complain to the wrong place, so just ignoring is the best thing
> for them to do.
>
> John
>
> (* the current set are easily enough identifyable as coming
> from Google. Google, while reasonably competent about abuse,
> tend to be very slow to do things)