What the hell happened to our newsgroup?

[joekhul]

This spam is the worst I've seen.

It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:40:43 -0700 (PDT), joekhul <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This spam is the worst I've seen.
>
>It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.

My news server has a spam hippo with a voracious appetite. It might
spit out a few watches or shoes after grazing but that's about it.

The spam complaints I see voiced on the group are coming primarily
from Google Groups users.
--
zk

 

[Tom Sherman]

Zoot Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:40:43 -0700 (PDT), joekhul <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>>
>> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>
> My news server has a spam hippo with a voracious appetite. It might
> spit out a few watches or shoes after grazing but that's about it.
>
> The spam complaints I see voiced on the group are coming primarily
> from Google Groups users.

On a bad day, I may see 10 or so commercial spam threads, but most days
only 1 or 2.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[ZBicyclist]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:40:43 -0700 (PDT), joekhul
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>>>
>>> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>>
>> My news server has a spam hippo with a voracious appetite. It
>> might
>> spit out a few watches or shoes after grazing but that's about
>> it.
>>
>> The spam complaints I see voiced on the group are coming
>> primarily
>> from Google Groups users.
>
> On a bad day, I may see 10 or so commercial spam threads, but most
> days only 1 or 2.

I'm accessing through SBC (nowAT&T) and in the past few weeks I've
gone from very few spam threads to being innundated.

--
Mike Kruger
"You have to be careful if you are reckless." - Richard M. Daley

 

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

On 2008-04-24, ZBicyclist <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Zoot Katz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:40:43 -0700 (PDT), joekhul
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>>>>
>>>> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>>>
>>> My news server has a spam hippo with a voracious appetite. It
>>> might
>>> spit out a few watches or shoes after grazing but that's about
>>> it.
>>>
>>> The spam complaints I see voiced on the group are coming
>>> primarily
>>> from Google Groups users.
>>
>> On a bad day, I may see 10 or so commercial spam threads, but most
>> days only 1 or 2.
>
> I'm accessing through SBC (nowAT&T) and in the past few weeks I've
> gone from very few spam threads to being innundated.

Same here. I finally had to killfile Google Groups (minus a select
whitelist) to manage it.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff
[email protected]

 

[Jay]

"Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2008-04-24, ZBicyclist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Same here. I finally had to killfile Google Groups (minus a select
> whitelist) to manage it.
>
> --
>
> Kristian Zoerhoff
> [email protected]
>
>
As usual. KMZ has it right. I am notoriously cheap and lazy, so I use
Comcast/AT&T (my ISP) for my news server at home, using OE for the
interface. FF is better, but I don't like clicking so many times to killfile
stuff.

At work, I use a free browse-only news server (text-groups only), with IE as
the interface for GG. I prefer the OE interface (over IE) for browsing,
because it is easier to see who is replying to whom. But if I want to post
or reply, I need to switch over to IE/GG.

Certainly not an elegant system, but not bad once you get used to it.

IT Guy J.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Jay Bollyn wrote:
> "Kristian M Zoerhoff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 2008-04-24, ZBicyclist <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Same here. I finally had to killfile Google Groups (minus a select
>> whitelist) to manage it.
>>
>>
> As usual. KMZ has it right. I am notoriously cheap and lazy, so I use
> Comcast/AT&T (my ISP) for my news server at home, using OE for the
> interface. FF is better, but I don't like clicking so many times to killfile
> stuff.
>
I use my no additional charge (bundled with rent) VDSL service, a free
news server and free Thunderbird (Mozilla, not Gallo). I am cheap.

> At work, I use a free browse-only news server (text-groups only), with IE as
> the interface for GG. I prefer the OE interface (over IE) for browsing,
> because it is easier to see who is replying to whom. But if I want to post
> or reply, I need to switch over to IE/GG.
>
> Certainly not an elegant system, but not bad once you get used to it.
>
Google Groups is useless because they suspend your posting privileges
for several hours if you send more than a couple of dozen posts, which
makes it hard to participate in flame wars.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[John Everett]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:23:53 -0500, "ZBicyclist"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> On a bad day, I may see 10 or so commercial spam threads, but most
>> days only 1 or 2.
>
>I'm accessing through SBC (nowAT&T) and in the past few weeks I've
>gone from very few spam threads to being innundated.

I'm also with ATT/SBC/Yahoo and see the same thing. Since my
newsreader is Agent it's pretty simple to sort on author, select the
blocks of spam, and delete them. I'm now doing this before resorting
into threads every time I "rn".


--
jeverett3<AT>sbcglobal<DOT>net (John V. Everett)

 

[landotter]

On Apr 23, 4:40 pm, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>
> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.

Abuse?? I LOVE watches and sneakers!

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 11:32 am, landotter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 4:40 pm, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This spam is the worst I've seen.
>
> > It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>
> Abuse?? I LOVE watches and sneakers!
>
>
I bought a bunch of those watches. I am going to send them to R.B.*
regulars for Xmas.

J.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 5:40 am, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>
> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.

I'm an internet bar user so I'm basically stuck with google groups and
I've basially given up trying to dig the good stuff out from under the
spam. Posted a recent mass chaos and confusion article here for old
times sake but I can't barely stand to try to read the group which is
a shame cause I remember there being good stuff in here.

 

[catzz66]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 24, 5:40 am, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>>
>> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>
> I'm an internet bar user so I'm basically stuck with google groups and
> I've basially given up trying to dig the good stuff out from under the
> spam. Posted a recent mass chaos and confusion article here for old
> times sake but I can't barely stand to try to read the group which is
> a shame cause I remember there being good stuff in here.

I feel sorry for Marion and other legitimate posters who have to use GG.
I'd be frustrated too. With a news agent and a fairly decent news
reader, you can keep from seeing most of the garbage posts and spam. It
is not just rbm that is getting hit. I look at a couple others. It
seems like every group I look at has spam and its share of mutts who
post garbage or other mutts who can't pass up replying to them. With a
little regular maintenance on your filters, you can avoid most of it.

 

[Aeek]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:12:28 -0500, catzz66 <[email protected]> wrote:


>I feel sorry for Marion and other legitimate posters who have to use GG.
> I'd be frustrated too. With a news agent and a fairly decent news
>reader, you can keep from seeing most of the garbage posts and spam. It
>is not just rbm that is getting hit. I look at a couple others. It
>seems like every group I look at has spam and its share of mutts who
>post garbage or other mutts who can't pass up replying to them. With a
>little regular maintenance on your filters, you can avoid most of it.

This wave of spam is at least blindingly obvious, the mutts are harder
to avoid.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 23, 4:40 pm, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>
> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>
>
As all regulars know, I am the spam king. I am responsible for all
Usenet spam, and all OT posts.

I am also the Usenet Abuse Czar.

And if you don't like my administrative decisions, I am also in charge
of appeals.

Emperor J.

 

[bktourer1]

On Apr 23, 5:40 pm, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>
> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.

I tried that nad go nowhere. I'm tired of ed dola, watch ads , shoe
and and bag ads. After this posting I am permanently leaving for
bikeforums.net.

I will never again check the google bicycle groups


ed

 

[Jay]

"bktourer1" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:31b948b5-14ab-4d94-b93f-6c0e4d2cd2ea@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 23, 5:40 pm, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
After this posting I am permanently leaving for
bikeforums.net.

I will never again check the google bicycle groups

ed
>
>
Don't let the Usenet digital door hit you in your virtual a** on the way
out.

J.

 

[Tom Sherman]

bktourer1 wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:40 pm, joekhul <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This spam is the worst I've seen.
>>
>> It may be fruitless -- but we need to report the abuse.
>
> I tried that nad go nowhere. I'm tired of ed dola, watch ads , shoe
> and and bag ads. After this posting I am permanently leaving for
> bikeforums.net.
>
> I will never again check the google bicycle groups
>
Dude, this is Usenet, not Google Groups.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 24, 6:13 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> Google Groups is useless because they suspend your posting privileges
> for several hours if you send more than a couple of dozen posts, which
> makes it hard to participate in flame wars.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
>
You are right Tom;

Anyone who wants to be very active in Usenet, needs a real news
server, and a real news reader.

J.

 

[[email protected]]

catzz66 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm an internet bar user so I'm basically stuck with google groups and
> > I've basially given up trying to dig the good stuff out from under the
> > spam. Posted a recent mass chaos and confusion article here for old
> > times sake but I can't barely stand to try to read the group which is
> > a shame cause I remember there being good stuff in here.

> I feel sorry for Marion and other legitimate posters who have to use GG.
> I'd be frustrated too. With a news agent and a fairly decent news
> reader, you can keep from seeing most of the garbage posts and spam. It
> is not just rbm that is getting hit. I look at a couple others. It
> seems like every group I look at has spam and its share of mutts who
> post garbage or other mutts who can't pass up replying to them. With a
> little regular maintenance on your filters, you can avoid most of it.

I'm inclined to suggest something that has worked fairly well in other
groups. How 'bout we begin the subject line of every legitimate thread
with the letters RBM? That would distinguish the real stuff from the spam
and crossposters. Anyone with a search feature could find it with
relative ease.


Bill


__o | You never know what is enough
_`\(,_ | until you know what is too much.
(_)/ (_) | --William Blake

 

[catzz66]

[email protected] wrote:
>
>
> I'm inclined to suggest something that has worked fairly well in other
> groups. How 'bout we begin the subject line of every legitimate thread
> with the letters RBM? That would distinguish the real stuff from the spam
> and crossposters. Anyone with a search feature could find it with
> relative ease.
>
>

Hate to be negative here, but it is too easy to fake a post that way. A
great many of the mutts are sitting at their keyboards manually posting
their junk. Filtering out the worst offenders and most common subjects
takes a little regular maintenance, but it works pretty well for me.