Good aviation forum I found

[[email protected]]

http://www.theblackhole.us/

[AJ]

Interesting -- the registration page is rejecting my email address.

[Peter Duniho]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> [spam link deleted]

Sure you did.

[Peter Duniho]

"AJ" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Interesting -- the registration page is rejecting my email address.

Check Google. The web site generates its traffic by posting phoney "I found
a good forum" messages to various places. Also, the web site rejects
gmail.com addresses (and possibly other free email sites).

My bet: it's just an email harvesting site. It may even reject all
addresses, and just save them off to a spam database.

I recommend everyone stay away.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:33:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>The web site generates its traffic by posting phoney "I found
>a good forum" messages to various places.

More Usenet spam brought to you through the irresponsible policies of
Google Groups.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> More Usenet spam brought to you through the irresponsible policies of
> Google Groups.

Yup. Used to be, Google was "the company you could trust". Now they are
"not quite as bad as Yahoo!". :(

[Chris W]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> More Usenet spam brought to you through the irresponsible policies of
> Google Groups.
>

I'm unclear on how google could be responsible for this post. What
would stop this kind of post even if google didn't exist?

--
Chris W
KE5GIX

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:HAIcg.50683$9c6.3514@dukeread11...
>> More Usenet spam brought to you through the irresponsible policies of
>> Google Groups.
>
> I'm unclear on how google could be responsible for this post. What would
> stop this kind of post even if google didn't exist?

Granted, it wouldn't *stop* spam. However, all reputable ISPs will suspend
Usenet access, if not cancel the account entirely, for posting spam.
Google, on the other hand, allows free access and does absolutely nothing
with respect to enforcing their own use policies, never mind the usual
accepted practices for Usenet.

At least if I send a complaint to an ISP, I'll get a form letter telling me
that they'll look into it and take action if the user's action was in
violation of their terms of service. Google basically says "tough luck".
In that respect, they encourage spammers to use their service for posting
Usenet spam.

Pete

[C. Massey]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 21:33:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>The web site generates its traffic by posting phoney "I found
>>a good forum" messages to various places.
>
> More Usenet spam brought to you through the irresponsible policies of
> Google Groups.
>


Very informative comment.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0621-2, 05/23/2006
Tested on: 5/23/2006 3:21:42 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[C. Massey]

"Chris W" > wrote in message
news:HAIcg.50683$9c6.3514@dukeread11...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> More Usenet spam brought to you through the irresponsible policies of
>> Google Groups.
>>
>
> I'm unclear on how google could be responsible for this post. What would
> stop this kind of post even if google didn't exist?
>


Because Larry said so and if he said so, it's true. Larry is *never* wrong.
Just ask him.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0621-2, 05/23/2006
Tested on: 5/23/2006 3:23:13 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[gatt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...

> Granted, it wouldn't *stop* spam. However, all reputable ISPs will
> suspend Usenet access, if not cancel the account entirely, for posting
> spam.

This is part of what I do for a living. Let me tell you....I've gotten
about 8,000 mails to the abuse address this month alone, and I have about
three hours a week to address them. The higher-ups just don't see a need
for full-time abuse management. Not only that, but about half of that IS
spam, but unlike other accounts, abuse admins can't filter spam or they'll
also filter complaints about spam.

So if one person complains about something somebody posted on the internet,
a policy administrator MIGHT actually see it and then triage it.
"That dude called me a jew" gets bit-bucketed with Scientology threats and
other minor issues and addressed IF I have time; generally, though, I have
bigger fish to fry such as the phishing scammers out of eastern europe,
pedophilia sites (NAILED an entire ring with the help of the FBI in March),
denial of service attacks, copyright infringement, etc. I get subpoenas
from Homeland Security, the FBI and, most recently, Al Jazeera. (!!)
Admins TRY to get it all, but because the friggin' gubmint confounds every
attempt to control spam (it's freedom of speech, you see, and people "want"
spam...just ask the spammers. And ignore the theft of services...)


-c

[Skywise]

"gatt" > wrote in
:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Granted, it wouldn't *stop* spam. However, all reputable ISPs will
>> suspend Usenet access, if not cancel the account entirely, for posting
>> spam.
>
> This is part of what I do for a living. Let me tell you....I've gotten
> about 8,000 mails to the abuse address this month alone, and I have
> about three hours a week to address them. The higher-ups just don't
> see a need for full-time abuse management. Not only that, but about
> half of that IS spam, but unlike other accounts, abuse admins can't
> filter spam or they'll also filter complaints about spam.
>
> So if one person complains about something somebody posted on the
> internet, a policy administrator MIGHT actually see it and then triage
> it. "That dude called me a jew" gets bit-bucketed with Scientology
> threats and other minor issues and addressed IF I have time; generally,
> though, I have bigger fish to fry such as the phishing scammers out of
> eastern europe, pedophilia sites (NAILED an entire ring with the help of
> the FBI in March), denial of service attacks, copyright infringement,
> etc. I get subpoenas from Homeland Security, the FBI and, most
> recently, Al Jazeera. (!!) Admins TRY to get it all, but because the
> friggin' gubmint confounds every attempt to control spam (it's freedom
> of speech, you see, and people "want" spam...just ask the spammers. And
> ignore the theft of services...)

Geeez....tell that to the nuts over at Supernews. They take
spamming so seriously that their filters start taking out the
good stuff. Then, if you complain, you get bitched at for
complaining and asked why you want spam.

To be honest, I'd rather err on the side of getting some spam
in order to allow me to NOT miss ANY legit postings. I am an
adult and I know how to use a spam filter. If there's something
I don't like, I'll block it myself, thank you very much.

Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Skywise > wrote:

> Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

hardly any of it could possibly qualify as gold for even the
most twisted mind.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 04:02:44 -0000, Skywise
> wrote in
>::

>Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.

Patronizing spammers is what causes them to persist in their blatant
theft of service. Never do that.

[Skywise]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 04:02:44 -0000, Skywise
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>Besides, one persons spam is another persons gold.
>
> Patronizing spammers is what causes them to persist in their blatant
> theft of service. Never do that.
>

I think I used the term 'spam' too broadly. There are many posts
that I know people bitch about that I have no problem with...and
vise-versa. Yes, there's the obvious blatant spam and that should
be dealt with.

What I was really trying to say is that what one person may consider
to be crap/junk/spam may be exactly what another person is looking
for.

It should be up to the end user to decide what they want or don't
want to see instead of some third party deciding based on their
own whims.

Brina
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> What I was really trying to say is that what one person may consider
> to be crap/junk/spam may be exactly what another person is looking
> for.
>
> It should be up to the end user to decide what they want or don't
> want to see instead of some third party deciding based on their
> own whims.

The beauty of the anti-spam movement is that is has nothing to do with
what's being advertised. A spammer could be advertising world peace, they'd
still be afoul of the anti-spam guidelines and would legitimately be
blocked.

It's true that some people over-user the term "spam". But the fact remains
that there's a time and place for everything, and advertising has a fairly
limited scope IMHO. If it's something I'm interested in, advertise to me in
an appropriate way. Until there is a standard for clearly marking
advertising and allowing me to automatically opt-out of all of it, none is
appropriate in Internet communications such as email, blogs, Usenet, etc.

To take any other stance is to render all of those communications useless,
as real, informative communications gets swamped by advertising. Up to your
email server, it already IS swamped; the only reason any of us can still use
email is because spam filtering is working reasonably well.

The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try to
get people to stop responding to spam. Not that he's incorrect about the
underlying facts, but that it's futile to even attempt to do so. Spammers,
taking advantage of Internet bandwidth paid for by everyone else, need only
the very tiniest response rate. Larry could get everyone he contacts to
stop replying, have them get everyone THEY contact to stop replying, and
have everyone those contacts contact to stop replying, and it still wouldn't
make a dent in the incentive to spam.

Pete

[Skywise]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in news:1279p8lkkv75tb8
@corp.supernews.com:

<Snipola>
> The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try to
> get people to stop responding to spam.

A reply isn't even what the advertisers are after. They are after
someone seeing the ad and then visiting the place advertised. I
don't think the advertisers could care less whether anyone replies
to the post or not. I doubt that but a handful of advertisement
spammers even follow up to see if their posts are replied to or
not. Those that do are probably the small timers who are targeting
a very specific audience and have only posted to "appropriate"
groups. Then, they're probabyl only interested in the fact that
there ARE replies and not what is actually being said. It tells
them that people have paid some attention to the ad, whether good
or bad.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
> news:1279p8lkkv75tb8 @corp.supernews.com:
>
> <Snipola>
>> The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try
>> to
>> get people to stop responding to spam.
>
> A reply isn't even what the advertisers are after. They are after
> someone seeing the ad and then visiting the place advertised.

I'm not talking about email replies to the spam itself, nor is Larry.

Please take particular note of definitions 2 and 3:

re·spond (r-spnd)
v. re·spond·ed, re·spond·ing, re·sponds
v. intr.
1.. To make a reply; answer. See Synonyms at answer.
2.. To act in return or in answer.
3.. To react positively or favorably: The patient has responded rapidly to
the treatment

[Skywise]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in news:127a276hanrnoa6
@corp.supernews.com:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in
>> news:1279p8lkkv75tb8 @corp.supernews.com:
>>
>> <Snipola>
>>> The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try
>>> to
>>> get people to stop responding to spam.
>>
>> A reply isn't even what the advertisers are after. They are after
>> someone seeing the ad and then visiting the place advertised.
>
> I'm not talking about email replies to the spam itself, nor is Larry.
>
> Please take particular note of definitions 2 and 3:

I see the problem here. We're talking two different things. I'm
think of usenet only whereas you guys are talking everything,
usenet, email, etc....

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Peter Duniho]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> I see the problem here. We're talking two different things. I'm
> think of usenet only whereas you guys are talking everything,
> usenet, email, etc....

Yes, that is a difference in what we're talking about.

Still, our comments do apply to Usenet, and the original issue Larry
mentioned is *specific* to Usenet (that is, Google Groups as a portal to
Usenet). Also, there are really two levels of spam-activity here:

* the original message which may or may not be spam (technically it may not
be, but since the exact same message has been posted to a wide variety of
other forums, Usenet and otherwise, with only the topic replaced I think
it's arguable that it is)

* the spam email messages that will be sent to anyone who attempts to
register for this bogus forum

It's all part and parcel of the same issue. To fight spam means to counter
any behavior that is related to the sending of spam, including spam-like
advertisements for a forum that may or may not even be legitimate, and
potential email-harvesting activities.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:58:22 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try to
>get people to stop responding to spam.

Perhaps you are able to suggest a superior course of assault on
spammers.

>Not that he's incorrect about the underlying facts, but that it's futile to
>even attempt to do so.

With reasoning like that, there's no need for laws in this nation of
ours; we should just open our borders and let the flood of immigrants
overwhelm our nation's systems of justice and social services.
Futility be dammed; I'll resist in any way I can, rather than submit
to criminality.

>Spammers, taking advantage of Internet bandwidth paid for by everyone else, need only
>the very tiniest response rate. Larry could get everyone he contacts to
>stop replying, have them get everyone THEY contact to stop replying, and
>have everyone those contacts contact to stop replying, and it still wouldn't
>make a dent in the incentive to spam.

Only a reduction in responses to spam will effectively have any impact
on spammers. While you may well be correct in you analysis of
futility in the scenario you put forth, it is the only power we have
at this time. Perhaps, when/if the IP address assignment scheme is
ever improves so that unassigned IP address traffic is routed to
dev/null, there may be a better course of action. Until that time, I
believe we all have a responsibility not to reward spammers by so much
as opening their unsolicited e-mail or clicking a link in the Usenet
articles.

Just because you feel that such a course is futile, does not make it
unreasonable considering the present lack of alternative actions
available at this time.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>The only thing Larry is wrong about here is his misguided attempt to try
>>to
>>get people to stop responding to spam.
>
> Perhaps you are able to suggest a superior course of assault on
> spammers.

Of course I am.

>>Not that he's incorrect about the underlying facts, but that it's futile
>>to
>>even attempt to do so.
>
> With reasoning like that, there's no need for laws in this nation of
> ours;

What an absurd conclusion. Using your logic, you could justify dress codes
as a preventative measure to rape.

Calling in question one particular proposed solution to a problem in no way
implies a general lack of concern for the problem. To assert otherwise is
to engage in the same sort of "if you're not with us, you're against us"
crap that the war-mongerers engage in.

> [...]
> Only a reduction in responses to spam will effectively have any impact
> on spammers.

Absolutely false. "A reduction" will accomplish nothing. It is true that
"a complete elimination in responses" will have an impact on spammers, but
that's a different goal than "a reduction". We've already had "a
reduction", and we only have MORE spam. In fact, "a reduction" without "an
elimination" only encourages more spam, because as the response rates go
down, the number of spam messages needs to go up in order to maintain or
increase the same total number of responses.

Furthermore, eliminating responses to spam is NOT the only way to have an
impact on spammers. There are other effective means, which have actually
been used successfully so far. We are very early in the fight against spam,
and effective techniques need to be given time to work. But they are
working, and none of the effective techniques involve bothering to try to
get people to not respond to spam.

> While you may well be correct in you analysis of
> futility in the scenario you put forth, it is the only power we have
> at this time.

Again, not true. Rather than lobbying the Usenet community, you could be
lobbying your own politicians to make effective anti-spam laws. "Only
power"? Hardly.

> [...]
> Just because you feel that such a course is futile, does not make it
> unreasonable considering the present lack of alternative actions
> available at this time.

Don't take it personally. I never called your approach "unreasonable", just
"futile". If you want to keep at it, be my guest. I made a simple comment
about the likelihood of it being useful, nothing more. If you want to turn
it into a big argument, be my guest, but your approach will still remain
futile, and you'll be wasting precious time you could be using to fight spam
on fighting me instead. Now that seems silly.

Pete