Robert Baer wrote: > How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk > sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
They emanate from Google Groups.
I confess, it seems to have got a lot worse recently. I wish Google would *cease* their interface to Usenet actually. It's just a spam engine.
Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> writes: > How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk > sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
We could turn this into a moderated group, or move into Guy Macons personal one.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:11 -0800 Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote in Message id: <13tholnj9ufp...@corp.supernews.com>:
> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
Nuke Googlegroups.
Alternately, you could add a filter expression author: *...@gmail.com I haven't done it yet, as I'm worried that I might miss some useful posts. The spam has been getting worse and worse lately, it wouldn't be so bad if the spammers would stop morphing their email addresses.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:54:40 -0400, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote: >On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:11 -0800 Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> >wrote in Message id: <13tholnj9ufp...@corp.supernews.com>:
>> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
>Nuke Googlegroups.
I have, except for a couple of known posters that I white-list.
Agent won't filter on Message-ID but by using Hamster as an intermediary, all of the google-originated junk gets thrown away before it even gets my Agent client.
I've seen, somewhere (el Reg?), that the captcha used to block bots from signing up for google accounts has been broken with a high enough success rate that it's now 'worthwhile' for the spammers to grab throw-away accounts.
>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:11 -0800 Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> >>wrote in Message id: <13tholnj9ufp...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
>>Nuke Googlegroups.
>I have, except for a couple of known posters that I white-list.
>Agent won't filter on Message-ID but by using Hamster as an >intermediary, all of the google-originated junk gets thrown away >before it even gets my Agent client.
>I've seen, somewhere (el Reg?), that the captcha used to block bots >from signing up for google accounts has been broken with a high enough >success rate that it's now 'worthwhile' for the spammers to grab >throw-away accounts.
Rich,
I found the Hamster executable package, but can't find a sensible instruction for setting it up.
Do you have a reference?
Thanks!
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
On Mar 13, 2:09 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote: > > How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk > > sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
> They emanate from Google Groups.
And I reported every single one of the profiles. Who knows if they actually get acted upon.
> I confess, it seems to have got a lot worse recently. I wish Google would > *cease* their interface to Usenet actually. It's just a spam engine.
I for one, enjoy having the web access via Google groups. The NNTP server that Verizon and Comcast both provide are terrible. Either some groups don't exist, articles never appear, the articles are expired too quickly, or their update time is terrible. At least with Google Groups, things update quickly and I can access it anywhere.
Now, if Google would just have access to the binary groups or allow binary postings....
Robert Baer wrote: >>How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
It's up to their providers. If Google Groups would **properly** process the reports they ALREADY get (and block the **IP address** of the offenders --or perhaps that entire range) this would slow to a trickle.
Since they instead cancel individual *accounts* (after a high latency), the vermin have adapted and simply sign up for a new account and the jerks don't miss a stride. Google not only doesn't stop them, they even let them use the same old email address.
As has already been noted in this thread, aoie has recently become a significant vector as well. It's just amazing what one unsupervised 13 year old can wreak. I haven't seen any traffic from *that* domain that anyone would miss.
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: >Would there be anything lost in killing anything from Google?
Look at the header of one of Win Hill's recent posts and you will answer your own question.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:14:56 -0700 (PDT), JeffM <jef...@email.com> wrote:
[snip]
>As has already been noted in this thread, >aoie has recently become a significant vector as well. >It's just amazing what one unsupervised 13 year old can wreak. >I haven't seen any traffic from *that* domain that anyone would miss.
Unfortunately, there are...
From: Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Choosing an AWG or function generator Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:53:34 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 21 Message-ID: <frbilu$38d$1@aioe.org>
>Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: >>Would there be anything lost in killing anything from Google?
>Look at the header of one of Win Hill's recent posts >and you will answer your own question.
I think Win is a big enough boy to switch to a reputable method (as if _any_ are really reputable :-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Rich Webb wrote: >I have, except for a couple of known posters that I white-list.
Yup. The only logical solution. Should anyone go on a trip or lose a provider and have to use Google (Speff and Win spring to mind), *they* could end up in the plonk a while.
>Agent won't filter on Message-ID
8-( A major (and seemingly obvious) deficiency.
>but by using Hamster as an intermediary, >all of the google-originated junk gets thrown away >before it even gets my Agent client.
To adjust the sieve fine enough, a proxy filter does look to be the trick.
>I've seen, somewhere (el Reg?), that the captcha >used to block bots from signing up for google accounts >has been broken with a high enough success rate
The *Need Help* button allows them enough time to run the analysis.
>that it's now 'worthwhile' for the spammers to grab throw-away accounts.
For Chinese/Indian/Pakistani/Indonesian spammers it has ALWAYS been worthwhile; it has simply become *easier*.
I wish an imminent but slow and painful death to anyone who buys from them and a pox on anyone who clicks their links.
...and I note again that Google Groups seems to be the dumping ground for Google's least-able employees. Gmail's great success filtering spam shows that it is duck soup --if you put capable people to work on it.
JeffM wrote: >>aoie has recently become a significant vector as well[...] >>I haven't seen any traffic from *that* domain that anyone would miss.
Jim Thompson wrote: >Unfortunately, there are... >From: Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please>[...] >Message-ID: <frbilu$38...@aioe.org>
There's always the exception that thwarts the *easy* fix. Rich Webb mentioned whitelist exceptions to general rules. I guess one of those dreaded harvesters is need to determine who all is posting from an otherwise black-hole domain.
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: >>>Would there be anything lost in killing anything from Google?
>>Look at the header of one of Win Hill's recent posts >>and you will answer your own question.
>I think Win is a big enough boy to switch to a reputable method (as if > _any_ are really reputable :-)
My response to Webb in this thread notes when Speff was in Asia and had to use an alternate access --which, by this metric, would have had him in many a plonk file.
>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:54:40 -0400, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:11 -0800 Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> >>>wrote in Message id: <13tholnj9ufp...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>>> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>>>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
>>>Nuke Googlegroups.
>>I have, except for a couple of known posters that I white-list.
>>Agent won't filter on Message-ID but by using Hamster as an >>intermediary, all of the google-originated junk gets thrown away >>before it even gets my Agent client.
>>I've seen, somewhere (el Reg?), that the captcha used to block bots >>from signing up for google accounts has been broken with a high enough >>success rate that it's now 'worthwhile' for the spammers to grab >>throw-away accounts.
>Rich,
>I found the Hamster executable package, but can't find a sensible >instruction for setting it up.
>Do you have a reference?
No, I just struggled through the help files and got it working.
Point your current client to the loopback IP.
Start the Hamster service (run as an executable; I haven't set it up to run as a real service).
Start the Control.
Configure | Remote Server Settings Add your current news server, username, password. Under the NNTP tab, check the box to reload the group list.
Tasks | Setup User Tasks | Add then name a new task to hold the NEWS "your server" task.
Configuration | Hamster Settings | Remote news Add your server to the post-to box.
To get new postings, use Tasks | Start Tasks, highlight your user task and start it. Should see a connection to your regular server.
In Agent, once I refreshed the group list from Hamster and set that as the priority server, my subscribed groups are listed in the newsgroups tab with the regular server in lighter type on the following line.
Don't delete the default internal.misc group; it's used to send you periodic status postings.
Probably missed a key step somewhere but this might help get you going.
The scoring is good enough to, for example, block everything from googlegroups except, e.g., those from 'larwe' posted from the expected host IP (so From: spoofing can be defeated).
>>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:54:40 -0400, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:11 -0800 Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> >>>>wrote in Message id: <13tholnj9ufp...@corp.supernews.com>:
>>>>> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>>>>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
>>>>Nuke Googlegroups.
>>>I have, except for a couple of known posters that I white-list.
>>>Agent won't filter on Message-ID but by using Hamster as an >>>intermediary, all of the google-originated junk gets thrown away >>>before it even gets my Agent client.
>>>I've seen, somewhere (el Reg?), that the captcha used to block bots >>>from signing up for google accounts has been broken with a high enough >>>success rate that it's now 'worthwhile' for the spammers to grab >>>throw-away accounts.
>>Rich,
>>I found the Hamster executable package, but can't find a sensible >>instruction for setting it up.
>>Do you have a reference?
>No, I just struggled through the help files and got it working.
>Point your current client to the loopback IP.
>Start the Hamster service (run as an executable; I haven't set it up >to run as a real service).
>Start the Control.
>Configure | Remote Server Settings >Add your current news server, username, password. >Under the NNTP tab, check the box to reload the group list.
>Tasks | Setup User Tasks | Add >then name a new task to hold the NEWS "your server" task.
>Configuration | Hamster Settings | Remote news >Add your server to the post-to box.
>To get new postings, use Tasks | Start Tasks, highlight your user task >and start it. Should see a connection to your regular server.
>In Agent, once I refreshed the group list from Hamster and set that as >the priority server, my subscribed groups are listed in the newsgroups >tab with the regular server in lighter type on the following line.
>Don't delete the default internal.misc group; it's used to send you >periodic status postings.
>Probably missed a key step somewhere but this might help get you >going.
>The scoring is good enough to, for example, block everything from >googlegroups except, e.g., those from 'larwe' posted from the expected >host IP (so From: spoofing can be defeated).
>Good luck and holler if you've any questions...
Thanks!
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
> If Google Groups would **properly** process > the reports they ALREADY get > (and block the **IP address** of the offenders > --or perhaps that entire range) this would slow to a trickle.
This would not work today. Most IP addresses people use are dynamic, and banning an entire range (say, 65536 addresses) because of one spammer is not something any of us would seriously advocate (hmm... I wish I could be more positive on that :-).
There is a technically simple way out, but ISPs will have to implement some of it first. Now, most of them do assign some DNS entry to any IP address, typically made unique by including the IP address itself in the name - this cannot be used. However, at least some (e.g. mine) ISPs do offer a DDNS service; that is, I can have a static DNS entry for any (or all) of the IP addresses I get, whatever they are at the moment. From there on, it is easy; either block them based on reverse DNS or whitelist users based on their forward DNS. I don't see that happening any time soon, of course. I use Google groups and if they disappear I am not sure I would bother finding some other path - and I would rather have them public as they are, and non-anonymous - as they are (they do include the originating IP address, if someone wants to complain about it the right addressee of the complaint would be the ISP proviging this IP, not Google).
JeffM wrote: > Robert Baer wrote: > >>How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk > >>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
> It's up to their providers. > If Google Groups would **properly** process > the reports they ALREADY get > (and block the **IP address** of the offenders > --or perhaps that entire range) this would slow to a trickle.
> Since they instead cancel individual *accounts* (after a high > latency), > the vermin have adapted and simply sign up for a new account > and the jerks don't miss a stride. > Google not only doesn't stop them, > they even let them use the same old email address.
> As has already been noted in this thread, > aoie has recently become a significant vector as well. > It's just amazing what one unsupervised 13 year old can wreak. > I haven't seen any traffic from *that* domain that anyone would miss.
> Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: > >Would there be anything lost in killing anything from Google?
> Look at the header of one of Win Hill's recent posts > and you will answer your own question.
JeffM wrote: >>If Google Groups would **properly** process >>the reports they ALREADY get >>(and block the **IP address** of the offenders >>--or perhaps that entire range) this would slow to a trickle.
Didi wrote: >This would not work today. Most IP addresses people use >are dynamic, and banning an entire range (say, 65536 addresses) >because of one spammer is not something any of us >would seriously advocate >(hmm... I wish I could be more positive on that :-).
I see this as a matter of *responsible behavior* on the part of providers. Letting the jerks off the hook (both the individuals and the providers) just rubs me the wrong way.
>[...]Google groups[...]include the originating IP address, >if someone wants to complain about it >the right addressee of the complaint would be the ISP >[providing] this IP, not Google).
Right...and to put pressure back onto rogue/lazy ISPs (where it belongs), Google could redirect requests from those known offender domains to a page that explains the situation to those subscribers:
"You have been sent to this page because your provider, ________.com, has a cavalier attitude about outbound spam. We suggest that you contact them at hostmaster@ ______.com and register your displeasure regarding their sloth/cluelessness.
> > If Google Groups would **properly** process > > the reports they ALREADY get > > (and block the **IP address** of the offenders > > --or perhaps that entire range) this would slow to a trickle.
> This would not work today. Most IP addresses people use are > dynamic, and banning an entire range (say, 65536 addresses) > because of one spammer is not something any of us would > seriously advocate (hmm... I wish I could be more positive on > that :-).
> There is a technically simple way out, but ISPs will have to implement > some of it first. Now, most of them do assign some DNS entry to > any IP address, typically made unique by including the IP address > itself in the name - this cannot be used. However, at least some > (e.g. mine) ISPs do offer a DDNS service; that is, I can have a > static DNS entry for any (or all) of the IP addresses I get, whatever > they are at the moment. From there on, it is easy; either block them > based on reverse DNS or whitelist users based on their forward > DNS. > I don't see that happening any time soon, of course. > I use Google groups and if they disappear I am not sure I would > bother finding some other path - and I would rather have them > public as they are, and non-anonymous - as they are (they do > include the originating IP address, if someone wants to complain > about it the right addressee of the complaint would be the ISP > proviging this IP, not Google).
> Dimiter
If you do DNS lookup on a lot of the spam it is posted through unassigned IP range blocks reserved for China. Google could block those addresses without affecting any legitimate users.
> > > If Google Groups would **properly** process > > > the reports they ALREADY get > > > (and block the **IP address** of the offenders > > > --or perhaps that entire range) this would slow to a trickle.
> > This would not work today. Most IP addresses people use are > > dynamic, and banning an entire range (say, 65536 addresses) > > because of one spammer is not something any of us would > > seriously advocate (hmm... I wish I could be more positive on > > that :-).
> > There is a technically simple way out, but ISPs will have to implement > > some of it first. Now, most of them do assign some DNS entry to > > any IP address, typically made unique by including the IP address > > itself in the name - this cannot be used. However, at least some > > (e.g. mine) ISPs do offer a DDNS service; that is, I can have a > > static DNS entry for any (or all) of the IP addresses I get, whatever > > they are at the moment. From there on, it is easy; either block them > > based on reverse DNS or whitelist users based on their forward > > DNS. > > I don't see that happening any time soon, of course. > > I use Google groups and if they disappear I am not sure I would > > bother finding some other path - and I would rather have them > > public as they are, and non-anonymous - as they are (they do > > include the originating IP address, if someone wants to complain > > about it the right addressee of the complaint would be the ISP > > proviging this IP, not Google).
> > Dimiter
> If you do DNS lookup on a lot of the spam it is posted through > unassigned IP range blocks reserved for China. Google could block those > addresses without affecting any legitimate users.
> -- > Sig file? I don't need no steenkin sig file!- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Google has enough money they could hire 20 people that could monitor all of News / Google groups, go through each one once a day and just delete the stuff. It would take a few minutes a day per group.
Better than that, there are enough people that would volunteer to do that if could set up an interface so a "moderator" could actually delete obvious spam... but not otherwise get involved in censorship. I'm sure we could get someone to volunteer to do that for this group, and each group has enough regulars that someone would be happy to do it...
or even some kind of a vote system, if enough people read a post and classify it as spam, then the system deletes it when the votes exceed some threshold....
trial by consensous....it works for Wikipedia...
Someone needs to do something...this is out of hand...
> trial by consensous....it works for Wikipedia...
Err. It doesn't work for wikipedia; Wikipedia is *crap*. The wikipedia problem is that the people with enough time and motivation to perpetually moderate posts and repost their versions e.t.c. are people who have no jobs, no social life and no family - i.e. dysfunctional people. So you will effectively let the ranters and ravers run the asylum because the sensible people have a finite amount of energy and time they wish to waste before they move on to something else that is productive.
This is why any un-moderated internet forum always descend to the standard of the most idiotic people. It takes time to create a resoned argument, it takes no time to rant and since the ranter has no life they can *always* out-stupid you! Stupid wins, always!!
> Someone needs to do something...this is out of hand...
That someone is yourself. Kill google posts for a start! (make an exception for Win et.al.)
>> trial by consensous....it works for Wikipedia...
> Err. It doesn't work for wikipedia; Wikipedia is *crap*.
Compared to what? It has been shown to be at least as accurate as a conventional, printed encyclopedia. I find it very useful as a general reference. Even for controversial "hot" topics it seems surprisingly rational.
>The wikipedia problem is that the people with enough time and >motivation to perpetually moderate posts and repost their versions >e.t.c. are people who have no jobs, no social life and no family - >i.e. dysfunctional people. So you will effectively let the ranters >and ravers run the asylum because the sensible people have a finite >amount of energy and time they wish to waste before they move on to >something else that is productive.
And yet it does in fact work. Of course it's not perfect, but it is amazingly good considering how it is created (and your points above).
> This is why any un-moderated internet forum always descend to the standard > of the most idiotic people. It takes time to create a resoned argument, it > takes no time to rant and since the ranter has no life they can *always* > out-stupid you! Stupid wins, always!!
>> Someone needs to do something...this is out of hand...
> That someone is yourself. Kill google posts for a start! (make an exception > for Win et.al.)
I think I agree here. Need to figure out how to whitelist people, with my newreader. I have already filtered out aioe, missed a couple of original posts by regulars but usually see them quoted in replies.
Mark wrote: >Google has enough money they could hire 20 people that could monitor >all of News / Google groups, go through each one once a day and just >delete the stuff. It would take a few minutes a day per group.
You've COMPLETELY missed the point of an *archive*.
The problem is that this crap gets posted *via* Google to start with. Most of this is REPEAT behavior which has already been reported. Once an IP address has been reported to Google as an offender, Google should block that IP address. I don't see a way for Google to do it without using a blunt tool.
The majority of *access providers* DO cut off the offenders It's Google that is is the turd in the punchbowl.
JW wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:16:11 -0800 Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> > wrote in Message id: <13tholnj9ufp...@corp.supernews.com>:
>> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
> Nuke Googlegroups.
> Alternately, you could add a filter expression author: *...@gmail.com > I haven't done it yet, as I'm worried that I might miss some useful posts. > The spam has been getting worse and worse lately, it wouldn't be so bad if > the spammers would stop morphing their email addresses.
No, the "answer" should not be a fence to keep the trash from getting into the house; it would still arrive on the property (ao to speak).
>>> How in the #$)#$))%^@)#$#(!*&@#!$) can these XXX rated and fake junk >>>sales postings be *PERMANTLY* be blocked before they get posted?
>>Would there be anything lost in killing anything from Google?
> One would think that, after claiming to have the most intelligent > employees in the computing word, that GOOGLE would be smart enough to > kill it, AND they would report the violators to some authority that can > administer the big smack down.
> These fucktards are worse than Spitzer could ever be. They should get > their hardware confiscated. and do jail time. Maybe then, the brainless > fucktards would learn to leave others alone.
> The real culprits are the retards over at aoie. All this horseshit > started immediately after the asswipe that runs the show over there was > called the total piece of shit that he is.
Well if true, it would seem to first thing is to gather court-acceptable evidence that the majority of the messages indeeed originated at aoie, and then set up a class action lawsuit for maybe $50 Million. Might be enough to recompense everyone some (after the lawyers take 90 percent) and bankrupt them.
|
