If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
Bob,
On another group you wondered if the forged approval message that had been posted to this group ( rec.crafts.jewelry ) actually made it to the group. You also had kind things to say about Peter. Perhaps Peter will either add to this post or reply in a follow up post about the fact that totally off topic posts, not approved by the moderator, do show up here on a semi-regular basis. There are people out there who delight in forging headers and causing problems in the "safe, moderated, groups" and will do so every time they figure out a "new" way to do it. Most of the time they are not very persistent but in the past there was a certain poster who spammed all of Usenet for quite a while before he was shut down. -- Don Thompson Stolen from Dan: "Just thinking, besides, I watched 2 dogs mating once, and that makes me an expert. " There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:52:20 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry "Don T"
wrote: Bob, On another group you wondered if the forged approval message that had been posted to this group ( rec.crafts.jewelry ) actually made it to the group. You also had kind things to say about Peter. Perhaps Peter will either add to this post or reply in a follow up post about the fact that totally off topic posts, not approved by the moderator, do show up here on a semi-regular basis. There are people out there who delight in forging headers and causing problems in the "safe, moderated, groups" and will do so every time they figure out a "new" way to do it. Most of the time they are not very persistent but in the past there was a certain poster who spammed all of Usenet for quite a while before he was shut down. Don, that pretty much sums it up. The moderation scheme devised by those who first set up the moderation option on usenet dates way back to when the whole net community was a lot smaller, and usenet was mostly a discussion forum found around university or company computer systems, so it's based more on trusting people to follow the rules, than anything seriously enforcable. It's not hard for people with a desire to break the rules, to do so, and post messages with forged approval headers. And when they do, those posts do indeed make it to the groups, since they then completely bypass the moderator and the moderation mechanism. Moderators who notice the posts can issue cancel commands that remove those posts from those news servers that honor such commands, but often it's just not worth the effort. Most moderated groups are moderated in the first place, because the users of those groups desire it that way, which means that people who are posting forged messages are sending their trash to a hostile audience. As with most spam on the net, the most common motivator for people to post spam or any sort, is the hope of selling something and making money. Advertising to an audience that is going to get angry at your ads, and sometimes will take active measures to combat your efforts, is just not cost effective advertising, and generates little in the way of sales or benefits to the poster, so in the end, it's not all that common. The crazy ones, those bent on smearing some political or other such message around the net, well, mostly those are easy to ignore. For my part, when I see a forged post, I generally issue a cancel command to remove the post from the news servers. But as I said, it's not fully effective. Some ISPs automatically detect the spams anyway, since such posts are often copied to many groups, triggering filters. The other, and perhaps most effective weapon against such forgeries is simply that ISPs don't like it when people abuse their systems. Some spamming or advertising is in a grey area that people can sometimes try to defend, or which ISPs don't rigorously go after. But forging approvals to moderated groups is clearly a violation of the terms of service of pretty much all ISPs, and so far, I've found good responses from ISPs, when advised that a customer of theirs is breaking that rule. Those who repeat the offense can quickly find their internet access, or at least their news server access, cut off completely. This of course is also not a perfect solution, since the really aggressive violators know all this, and take steps to hide their tracks and identity. It's harder to do than most people realize, since although one can hide one's identity from the public, hiding it from the ISPs is quite difficult. Posts can be traced, if an ISP wishes to do so, back to the sending computer or network. So in those cases, disciplinary action can be taken, and usually is. But as I said, the really aggressive posters figure out ways around this, including finding open WIFI routers out there which people forget to secure, or sending posts via foreign news servers, etc. Fortunately, it's just not a common problem. And the best solution, usually, is just to ignore the junk. Usually, it's not worth more effort than that needed to hit your delete key. Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
On Dec 28, 12:06=A0pm, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:52:20 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry "Don T" wrote: Bob, =A0On another group you wondered if the forged approval message that ha= d been posted to this group ( rec.crafts.jewelry ) actually made it to the grou= p. You also had kind things to say about Peter. Perhaps Peter will either a= dd to this post or reply in a follow up post about the fact that totally of= f topic posts, not approved by the moderator, do show up here on a semi-regular basis. There are people out there who delight in forging headers and causing problems in the "safe, moderated, groups" and will d= o so every time they figure out a "new" way to do it. Most of the time they a= re not very persistent but in the past there was a certain poster who spamm= ed all of Usenet for quite a while before he was shut down. Don, that pretty much sums it up. =A0The moderation scheme devised by those who= first set up the moderation option on usenet dates way back to when the whole ne= t community was a lot smaller, and usenet was mostly a discussion forum foun= d around university or company computer systems, so it's based more on trust= ing people to follow the rules, than anything seriously enforcable. =A0 It's n= ot hard for people with a desire to break the rules, to do so, and post messages w= ith forged approval headers. =A0And when they do, those posts do indeed make i= t to the groups, since they then completely bypass the moderator and the moderation= mechanism. =A0 Moderators who notice the posts can issue cancel commands t= hat remove those posts from those news servers that honor such commands, but o= ften it's just not worth the effort. =A0Most moderated groups are moderated in = the first place, because the users of those groups desire it that way, which m= eans that people who are posting forged messages are sending their trash to a h= ostile audience. =A0 As with most spam on the net, the most common motivator for = people to post spam or any sort, is the hope of selling something and making mone= y. Advertising to an audience that is going to get angry at your ads, and som= etimes will take active measures to combat your efforts, is just not cost effecti= ve advertising, and generates little in the way of sales or benefits to the p= oster, so in the end, it's not all that common. =A0The crazy ones, those bent on = smearing some political or other such message around the net, well, mostly those ar= e easy to ignore. For my part, when I see a forged post, I generally issue a cancel command = to remove the post from the news servers. =A0But as I said, it's not fully ef= fective. Some ISPs automatically detect the spams anyway, since such posts are ofte= n copied to many groups, triggering filters. =A0 The other, and perhaps most effective weapon against such forgeries is sim= ply that ISPs don't like it when people abuse their systems. =A0Some spamming = or advertising is in a grey area that people can sometimes try to defend, or = which ISPs don't rigorously go after. =A0But forging approvals to moderated grou= ps is clearly a violation of the terms of service of pretty much all ISPs, and s= o far, I've found good responses from ISPs, when advised that a customer of their= s is breaking that rule. =A0Those who repeat the offense can quickly find their= internet access, or at least their news server access, cut off completely.= This of course is also not a perfect solution, since the really aggressive viol= ators know all this, and take steps to hide their tracks and identity. =A0It's h= arder to do than most people realize, since although one can hide one's identity fr= om the public, hiding it from the ISPs is quite difficult. =A0Posts can be traced= , if an ISP wishes to do so, back to the sending computer or network. So in those = cases, disciplinary action can be taken, and usually is. =A0But as I said, the re= ally aggressive posters figure out ways around this, including finding open WIF= I routers out there which people forget to secure, or sending posts via fore= ign news servers, etc. =A0 =A0 Fortunately, =A0it's just not a common problem. =A0And the best solution, = usually, is just to ignore the junk. =A0Usually, it's not worth more effort than th= at needed to hit your delete key. Peter Hi, Guys -- OK, I stand *semi* corrected. Peter has acknowledged that some posts with forged approvals do make it past him into r.c.j -- however, I still say we haven't seen the heavy pollution from sporge attacks like some of the other, non-moderated groups. BTW, in case anyone else is wondering what we are talking abou here, it is a spill-over from a discussion in rec.pyrotechnics about whether or not to go moderated, and whether that offers any protection from the sporgers. There are a few here that read both groups. Regards, Bob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:52:20 -0800, "Don T"
wrote: Bob, On another group you wondered if the forged approval message that had been posted to this group ( rec.crafts.jewelry ) actually made it to the group. You also had kind things to say about Peter. Perhaps Peter will either add to this post or reply in a follow up post about the fact that totally off topic posts, not approved by the moderator, do show up here on a semi-regular basis. There are people out there who delight in forging headers and causing problems in the "safe, moderated, groups" and will do so every time they figure out a "new" way to do it. Most of the time they are not very persistent but in the past there was a certain poster who spammed all of Usenet for quite a while before he was shut down. He just did a mild sporge of rec.arts.sf.written on the 26th. -- Marilee J. Layman http://mjlayman.livejournal.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:22:00 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry Bob
wrote: Hi, Guys -- OK, I stand *semi* corrected. Peter has acknowledged that some posts with forged approvals do make it past him into r.c.j -- however, I still say we haven't seen the heavy pollution from sporge attacks like some of the other, non-moderated groups. If the risk of spam/sporge/etc attacks in a given group seems high enough, then moderation offers a couple other modest "work arounds". Although the main system doesn't offer much protection against spammers, some groups use more than just a manual moderation scheme. Here in rec.crafts.jewelry, forged posts might well go unnoticed, and un cancelled, if I don't happen to check for them or someone else calls them to my attention. Or, if it were a major attack, I might be simply swamped trying to deal with them, since with my software setup, sending a cancel command for a posting requires me to alter a bunch of the settings in my own news software so it thinks I'm the one who sent the original post, only then will it allow me to send the cancel. That's why I don't usually bother. But some moderators, especially in some of the more active or contentious groups, and especially in those groups more computer oriented, the moderators set it up with a web based moderation site, or as a perl program running on a unix shell account. That sort of setup can then be designed so that posts, when approved, get the addition of a PGP encoded approval header or other addition. That coded bit added to the post shows that program that a copy of the post that it may then see added to it's news feed or on it's server already was indeed properly approved, and any post that it finds that does not have the proper PGP key, then gets automatically cancelled by the software. This setup is still not perfect of course, but it's much more than what I do here. The main downside, at least for me, is that it costs more. I'd have to pay to set up the site to add that moderation bot to r.c.j., and pay to have it remain up. On my budget, that's not an attractive option. But if you're considering moderating a group, it IS possible to set up the moderation scheme in a way that has better, though not complete, protection from spamming and other attacks, than does r.c.j. These setups also are good in that they are usually set up to easily allow moderation tasks to be performed by a team of people, rather than just one. Again, that would have been an attractive thing to me, had I ever gotten much response when asking if others in the group would like to share the moderation tasks. Usually I can find someone willing to fill in when I take a vacation, but musings about finding someone to actually take over, or take on the task as a shared regular thing? Not much more than silence. Which proves that the rest of you readers in this group are brighter than I was when I volunteered to do this. Which brings me to the last consideration you should discuss. Remember that when you set a group up as moderated, it becomes vulnerable to instant death if the moderator abandons the group or doesn't do his/her job. Messages sent to the group languish in a moderators email unless he/she or someone else gets them out, approves them, and properly posts them. The hoops group members need to jump through to rescue an abandoned group are not so simple, because the system doesn't want disgruntled group readers, perhaps mad at having their posts rejected, easily able to steal the moderation task or otherwise change the setup. If your group becomes moderated, and then after a few years the moderator gets tired of the task, you'll then have to find another victim. Er, I mean volunteer. Though you can, if you find and contact the right folks, get the submission address changed/rescued from a disappeared moderator back to someone willing to do it, it's much harder to get a group unmoderated if it doesn't work for you. Same hassle as converting one to moderated status, only then perhaps having to do it despite lack of cooperation from a moderator who may not agree... For my part, I never dreamed, and nobody ever warned me or suggested to me, that when I agreed to moderate this group, it would be a permanent unchangeable task from which I couldn't easily escape or resign. It's been ten years now, and fortunately, I still enjoy it. Mostly. It costs me time and money I can't always afford. And I'm betting that you might not always be so lucky in your group to both find some poor sap to do the job, or that he/she will remain willing to continue to do it. Be careful that you and other group readers really want a moderated group, and are willing to jointly take responsibility for keeping it running. Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
On Dec 28, 10:43=A0pm, "Peter W.. Rowe,"
wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:22:00 -0800, in rec.crafts.jewelry Bob wrote: Hi, Guys -- OK, I stand *semi* corrected. =A0Peter has acknowledged that some posts with forged approvals do make it past him into r.c.j -- however, I still say we haven't seen the heavy pollution from sporge attacks like some of the other, non-moderated groups. If the risk of spam/sporge/etc attacks in a given group seems high enough,= then moderation offers a couple other modest "work arounds". =A0Although the ma= in system doesn't offer much protection against spammers, some groups use mor= e than just a manual moderation scheme. =A0Here in rec.crafts.jewelry, forged pos= ts might well go unnoticed, and un cancelled, if I don't happen to check for them o= r someone else calls them to my attention. =A0Or, if it were a major attack,= I might be simply swamped trying to deal with them, since with my software setup, sending a cancel command for a posting requires me to alter a bunch of the= settings in my own news software so it thinks I'm the one who sent the ori= ginal post, only then will it allow me to send =A0the cancel. =A0That's why I do= n't usually bother. But some moderators, especially in some of the more active or contentious groups, and especially in those groups more computer oriented, the moderat= ors set it up with a web based moderation site, or as a perl program running o= n a unix shell account. =A0That sort of setup can then be designed so that pos= ts, when approved, get the addition of a PGP encoded approval header or other addit= ion. That coded bit added to the post shows that program that a copy of the pos= t that it may then see added to it's news feed or on it's server already was inde= ed properly approved, and any post that it finds that does not have the prope= r PGP key, then gets automatically cancelled by the software. =A0This setup is s= till not perfect of course, but it's much more than what I do here. =A0The main dow= nside, at least for me, is that it costs more. =A0I'd have to pay to set up the s= ite to add that moderation bot to r.c.j., and pay to have it remain up. =A0On my = budget, that's not an attractive option. =A0 But if you're considering moderating a group, it IS possible to set up the= moderation scheme in a way that has better, though not complete, protectio= n from spamming and other attacks, than does r.c.j. =A0 These setups also are goo= d in that they are usually set up to easily allow moderation tasks to be perfor= med by a team of people, rather than just one. =A0Again, that would have been an attractive thing to me, had I ever gotten much response when asking if oth= ers in the group would like to share the moderation tasks. =A0Usually I can find = someone willing to fill in when I take a vacation, but musings about finding someo= ne to actually take over, or take on the task as a shared regular thing? =A0Not = much more than silence. =A0Which proves that the rest of you readers in this gr= oup are brighter than I was when I volunteered to do this. Which brings me to the last consideration you should discuss. =A0Remember = that when you set a group up as moderated, =A0it becomes vulnerable to instant = death if the moderator abandons the group or doesn't do his/her job. =A0Messages se= nt to the group languish in a moderators email unless he/she or someone else get= s them out, approves them, and properly posts them. =A0The hoops group members ne= ed to jump through to rescue an abandoned group are not so simple, because the s= ystem doesn't want disgruntled group readers, perhaps mad at having their posts rejected, easily able to steal the moderation task or otherwise change the= setup. =A0 =A0If your group becomes moderated, and then after a few years = the moderator gets tired of the task, you'll then have to find another victim.= =A0Er, I mean volunteer. =A0Though you can, if you find and contact the right fol= ks, get the submission address changed/rescued from a disappeared moderator back t= o someone willing to do it, it's much harder to get a group unmoderated if i= t doesn't work for you. =A0Same hassle as converting one to moderated status= , only then perhaps having to do it despite lack of cooperation from a moderator = who may not agree... =A0 =A0For my part, I never dreamed, and nobody ever warn= ed me or suggested to me, that when I agreed to moderate this group, it would be a permanent unchangeable task from which I couldn't easily escape or resign.= =A0It's been ten years now, and fortunately, I still enjoy it. =A0Mostly. =A0 It c= osts me time and money I can't always afford. =A0And I'm betting that you might no= t always be so lucky in your group to both find some poor sap to do the job, or tha= t he/she will remain willing to continue to do it. =A0 Be careful that you a= nd other group readers really want a moderated group, and are willing to jointly ta= ke responsibility for keeping it running. Peter =A0 Thanks, Peter -- that's very helpful. I'm only a reader and very occasional poster over at rec.pyro, so it won't be up to me what happens, but I'll post your advice over there for consideration. Regards, Bob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT Looking for SF Bob (And Peter too.)
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:22:09 -0800, "Marilee J. Layman"
wrote: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:52:20 -0800, "Don T" wrote: Bob, On another group you wondered if the forged approval message that had been posted to this group ( rec.crafts.jewelry ) actually made it to the group. You also had kind things to say about Peter. Perhaps Peter will either add to this post or reply in a follow up post about the fact that totally off topic posts, not approved by the moderator, do show up here on a semi-regular basis. There are people out there who delight in forging headers and causing problems in the "safe, moderated, groups" and will do so every time they figure out a "new" way to do it. Most of the time they are not very persistent but in the past there was a certain poster who spammed all of Usenet for quite a while before he was shut down. He just did a mild sporge of rec.arts.sf.written on the 26th. And a somewhat larger one today. -- Marilee J. Layman http://mjlayman.livejournal.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Peter Rabbit fabric...... | Sunny | Quilting | 1 | December 9th 06 10:16 PM |
**PETER** A necklace I am proud of :) | Rick Hamilton | Jewelry | 0 | January 16th 06 05:41 PM |
Robbing Peter | frood | Quilting | 32 | May 11th 05 07:18 AM |
Blue Peter | Dougi | Knots | 2 | January 8th 04 12:46 PM |