Whats going on With this NG

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
server or what?
17 answers Last reply
More about whats
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:49 -0600, "me" <com@com.com> wrote:

    >It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    >server or what?
    >
    It's an idiot who seems to have discovered that he can do things
    others don't like, just to mess things up, without taking any
    responsibility for it. I grew up calling these people cowards.
    Anyway, Google for the original, and look at the headers. You'll see
    that Google is being used to post the original posts, and followups
    are set to RPD and another photo group. Thus, any responses from the
    original newsgroup go to the other newsgroups, and don't show up in
    the original newsgroup.
    Google won't do anything about it. The newsgroups are one of the last
    bastions of true anarchy.
    The best thing to do is what you'd do to any OT post; ignore it. These
    people are fed by the responses they generate; starve 'em out.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "me" <com@com.com> wrote in message news:42092553_1@news.vic.com...
    > It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    > server or what?
    >
    >

    Just ignore the flies.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <0ici01972m08n0nlu6m9hv84547m08k0f5@4ax.com>,
    Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:49 -0600, "me" <com@com.com> wrote:
    >
    > >It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    > >server or what?
    > >
    > It's an idiot who seems to have discovered that he can do things
    > others don't like, just to mess things up, without taking any
    > responsibility for it. I grew up calling these people cowards.
    > Anyway, Google for the original, and look at the headers. You'll see
    > that Google is being used to post the original posts, and followups
    > are set to RPD and another photo group. Thus, any responses from the
    > original newsgroup go to the other newsgroups, and don't show up in
    > the original newsgroup.
    > Google won't do anything about it. The newsgroups are one of the last
    > bastions of true anarchy.
    > The best thing to do is what you'd do to any OT post; ignore it. These
    > people are fed by the responses they generate; starve 'em out.

    Ignoring it is why up to 90% of e-mail is spam. Fight it. Forward all
    of the crosspost attacks to Google. Ask your news admin to aggressively
    filter Google until they secure their Usenet gateway.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Big Bill wrote:

    > What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do
    you
    > filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?

    Google Groups could refuse to post an article where the
    Followup-to: newsgroups isn't a subset of the To: newsgroups.
    Is there any legitimate reason to set a followup to a
    newsgroup which your article isn't posted to? I don't think
    so.

    If you're attempting to migrate a discussion to a more
    appropriate newsgroup, you'd post your own article to that
    new newsgroup. For example, suppose a question about goldfish
    is posted to alt.salmon. You'd forward the discussion by
    posting to both alt.goldfish and alt.salmon, setting the
    followups to alt.goldfish.

    Another thing that Google Groups could do is prepend a warning
    to any post with Followup-to: set to anything other than the
    To: newsgroups. This warning could look something like:

    WARNING!
    WARNING! FOLLOWUPS SET TO REC.PHOTO.DIGITAL, REC.PHOTO.35MM
    WARNING!

    With this warning in place, anyone posting a followup
    reply would know something was unusual.

    Google Groups already has some anti-spam restrictions, like
    not accepting a posting to more than 5 newsgroups.

    Isaac Kuo
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:28:55 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
    <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote:

    >In article <0ici01972m08n0nlu6m9hv84547m08k0f5@4ax.com>,
    > Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:49 -0600, "me" <com@com.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    >> >server or what?
    >> >
    >> It's an idiot who seems to have discovered that he can do things
    >> others don't like, just to mess things up, without taking any
    >> responsibility for it. I grew up calling these people cowards.
    >> Anyway, Google for the original, and look at the headers. You'll see
    >> that Google is being used to post the original posts, and followups
    >> are set to RPD and another photo group. Thus, any responses from the
    >> original newsgroup go to the other newsgroups, and don't show up in
    >> the original newsgroup.
    >> Google won't do anything about it. The newsgroups are one of the last
    >> bastions of true anarchy.
    >> The best thing to do is what you'd do to any OT post; ignore it. These
    >> people are fed by the responses they generate; starve 'em out.
    >
    >Ignoring it is why up to 90% of e-mail is spam. Fight it. Forward all
    >of the crosspost attacks to Google. Ask your news admin to aggressively
    >filter Google until they secure their Usenet gateway.

    Filter Google?
    Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    "Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?
    These idiots thrive on the feedback they get. The more complaints they
    see, the more they pile it on. It's the way they work; they aren't
    normal. Ignore them, they starve.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:02:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    >Filter Google?
    >Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    >"Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    >What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    >filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?

    If google doesn't allow their user to set the "follow up to:" field to anything
    except the group they're posting to that would end a lot of it.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:54:05 -0700, Bill Rude <k7kkg@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:02:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Filter Google?
    >>Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    >>"Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    >>What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    >>filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?
    >
    >If google doesn't allow their user to set the "follow up to:" field to anything
    >except the group they're posting to that would end a lot of it.

    You guys are asking for the end of Followups; you know that, don't
    you?
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Kibo informs me that "me" <com@com.com> stated that:

    >It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    >server or what?

    It's our mentally-disturbed porno-troll forging crossposts to this group
    from all over Usenet - again.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
    news:5sjk01h7kge27h92gqc4p0iohe3vfpmelg@4ax.com...

    [...]

    > What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    > filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?

    You don't - that's the whole point. Once others get to know how easy it is
    to use Google to disrupt newsgroups, there'll be no other way BUT to
    blanket-filter Google groups.

    > These idiots thrive on the feedback they get. The more complaints they
    > see, the more they pile it on. It's the way they work; they aren't
    > normal. Ignore them, they starve.

    But then others come along, and do the same, and then others, and more; and
    more; and more....This is just the tip of the iceberg if Google allow
    unrestricted free and unaccountable access - had any email spam recently?
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:49 -0600
    In message <42092553_1@news.vic.com>
    "me" <com@com.com> wrote:

    > It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    > server or what?

    Oh, one other thing. The FBI used to, but does not now, care about
    this type of Denial of Service attack anymore. Best advice:

    ignore the trolls
    ignore the computer generated posts
    ignore any seeming attacks

    Jeff
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:35:50 GMT, Confused
    <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

    >On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:51:49 -0600
    >In message <42092553_1@news.vic.com>
    >"me" <com@com.com> wrote:
    >
    >> It seems that many newsgroups are crossposted to this one. Is the news
    >> server or what?
    >
    >Oh, one other thing. The FBI used to, but does not now, care about
    >this type of Denial of Service attack anymore. Best advice:
    >
    > ignore the trolls
    > ignore the computer generated posts
    > ignore any seeming attacks

    It's a form of terrorism on a westernized social network. The
    Department of Home Security should care about this.

    Google is evil for allowing these posts to originate from their
    network.

    --
    Owamanga!
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Bill Rude wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:02:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Filter Google?
    >>Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    >>"Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    >>What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    >>filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?
    >
    >
    > If google doesn't allow their user to set the "follow up to:" field to anything
    > except the group they're posting to that would end a lot of it.
    >

    Or how about only between groups with some close relation in title.
    There's a legitimate reason sometimes to post to a few closely related
    groups-- i. e. when a single topic gets fragmented.
    (misc.transport.rail.* has several regional groups)

    A probability-of-spam score may be done based on cross-posting, the
    complaints recieved of spam (both texts and users). High enough ones
    could get rejected.

    I could see (based on posters and content analysis), a "relative
    similarity" index for groups (rec.photo.digital is probably fairly close
    to rec.photo.35mm, but miles from alt.fan.dragons) to see if
    crossposting's likely beneficial.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:46:37 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

    >On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:54:05 -0700, Bill Rude <k7kkg@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:02:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Filter Google?
    >>>Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    >>>"Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    >>>What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    >>>filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?
    >>
    >>If google doesn't allow their user to set the "follow up to:" field to anything
    >>except the group they're posting to that would end a lot of it.
    >
    >You guys are asking for the end of Followups; you know that, don't
    >you?

    When do you *need* this feature?

    (...other then when you are trying to terrorize netzians?)

    --
    Owamanga!
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:34:26 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:46:37 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:54:05 -0700, Bill Rude <k7kkg@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:02:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Filter Google?
    >>>>Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    >>>>"Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    >>>>What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    >>>>filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?
    >>>
    >>>If google doesn't allow their user to set the "follow up to:" field to anything
    >>>except the group they're posting to that would end a lot of it.
    >>
    >>You guys are asking for the end of Followups; you know that, don't
    >>you?
    >
    >When do you *need* this feature?
    >
    >(...other then when you are trying to terrorize netzians?)

    There's a *needs* test? :-)

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Big Bill wrote:
    > On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:54:05 -0700, Bill Rude <k7kkg@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:02:12 -0700, Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Filter Google?
    >>>Have you any idea of how many people use Google responsibly?
    >>>"Cut off your nose to spite your face."
    >>>What, exactly, do you expect Google to do? I mean, exactly? How do you
    >>>filter this activity without filtering a lot more legimate activity?
    >>
    >>If google doesn't allow their user to set the "follow up to:" field to anything
    >>except the group they're posting to that would end a lot of it.
    >
    >
    > You guys are asking for the end of Followups; you know that, don't
    > you?

    Not at all.

    All they are saying is that the follow-up field is automatically set to
    only the newsgroup that the post is being posted to. Also, limiting the
    number of newsgroups that a post can be posted to to 2 or 3.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Big Bill wrote:

    >>REJECT any posts originating from their network where the followup
    >>newsgroup list is different to the original distribution. This type of
    >>post is ALWAYS BOGUS.
    >
    >
    > So you want Google to read every post to see if it meets your
    > specifications?

    I think that you don't understand that it isn't necessary for anyone at
    Google to read any post, in order for the followup newsgroup to be
    automatically set to the newsgroup from where the post is originating.

    Actually I think you do understand this, you're just being obnoxious.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Jack Zeal <hakfoo@gmail.com> wrote:

    : Or how about only between groups with some close relation in title.
    : There's a legitimate reason sometimes to post to a few closely related
    : groups-- i. e. when a single topic gets fragmented.
    : (misc.transport.rail.* has several regional groups)

    You are talking about multiple problems. If a message is crossposted to
    multiple groups (related or not) that is one problem. But the problem
    being discussed is the setting of "followup to" to a group that is not
    included in the original groups. Thus a message from a google account (or
    any other ISP) with an improper followup setting would spam the
    unsuspecting group (like this one) with all the replys while the
    instigating message remains "innocently" off the spammed group. So if a
    requirement that the Followup setting must be at least a portion of the
    Groups line would ensure that malicious postings could be traced to the
    instigator easier.

    : A probability-of-spam score may be done based on cross-posting, the
    : complaints recieved of spam (both texts and users). High enough ones
    : could get rejected.

    : I could see (based on posters and content analysis), a "relative
    : similarity" index for groups (rec.photo.digital is probably fairly close
    : to rec.photo.35mm, but miles from alt.fan.dragons) to see if
    : crossposting's likely beneficial.

    Computers are dumb. There would have to be a massive undertaking to
    collect a database of "similarities" between all the newsgroups. And the
    comparison of any posted message to all the possible crossover subjects
    would take a huge amount of computing when you concider the huge number of
    postings made each hour.

    So I suspect that a relational check is not likely to ever be done. But a
    broad "no more than 3 groups in a single posting" and a "followup must be
    at least a subset of the groups line" rule would reduce the problem. I am
    not so silly to believe that all malicious postings will be eliminated
    with these rules, but it would make it less easy and thus less prevalent.

    JMHO

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Newsgroup Servers Cameras