Any Ideas on Turning off the Spammer?

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:01 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
I'm seeing a huge number of spam postings in this group. I'm sure they are
from a bot, but since the address keeps switching, I don't know how to block
the messages in OE.

Suggestions?

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

-Robert


As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts. If so, that would be classic
trolling. I don't see any other benefit but I'm open to suggestion from
the more psychologically qualified on the group. The actual answer might
very well be above my pay grade :-))

Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:57:53 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

and received a notice from the
"moderator" telling me that my answer wouldn't be posted as it was
irrelevant.

The moderator probably didn't understand what you wrote. That is one of
the major problems with moderators that try to be content-sensitive (not
all do this, BTW): they need to understand the content.

We've a moderated mailing list for our town. For most threads (what's a
good restaurant, where can I buy a dohickey, does anyone want to buy my
dohickey, etc), it's fine. And it does keep down the noise which might
cause some of the "lighter souls" to depart.

But the moment the issue becomes at all complex (municipal finance, land
use, etc.) and numbers or reference citations start to fly, most of the
moderators do a terrible job. It's common for a some of them to reject
postings as "not about our town" when they see references to articles
about those same issues being faces elsewhere; they don't even bother
reading the articles to see whether there's something to be applied
locally.

It's a pity, as I otherwise like the idea of extending our community into
online media.

- Andrew

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:47 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

How does he profit
by this?

How does a vandal typically profit?

- Andrew

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:44:58 -0700, Doug Semler wrote in
.com:

On Aug 13, 1:05 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:28:10 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
. com:

I've noticed that a lot of other groups are fullyl moderated. It
wouldn't be a bad idea to nominate 4 or 5 people (maybe from around
the world for 24x7 coverage) to approve posting.

-Robert

Wouldn't it? What criteria would YOU use to reject articles?

I know ONE criteria (criterium?) *I* would use g

Criterion for singular, criteria for plural.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news


Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

You can't moderate this group. It has to be set up as moderated.
It's a really bad idea in any case.


Bertie

I enjoyed my one post ever to a moderated group. I think it was WW2
history or something like that.
Somebody posted a question asking for fuel tank information on the P51.
I answered the post with the information, and received a notice from the
"moderator" telling me that my answer wouldn't be posted as it was
irrelevant.
Never looked again for a moderated newsgroup since that moment.

--
Dudley Henriques
President Emeritus
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship

That pretty much sums it up!

Peter

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

It could be an ego issue: He demonstrates his power to disrupt
thousands of users. Or it could be a means of encoding messages
within multiple articles al la spread spectrum technique. Or
something else.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

You ask that question right after you post this in the same thread? You got
anything to back that up?



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

It could be an ego issue: He demonstrates his power to disrupt
thousands of users. Or it could be a means of encoding messages
within multiple articles al la spread spectrum technique. Or
something else.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:58:10 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

You ask that question right after you post this in the same thread? You got
anything to back that up?


You may have failed to recognize the fact that Mr. Henriques said he
was able to tell how the sporger(s) got their kicks, while I merely
offered possibilities. There is a difference between the two types of
statements. One implies that there is some evidence that leads Mr.
Henriques to his conclusion. The other is merely my unsubstantiated
opinion reached by examining the facts.

If Mr. Henriques is able to provide some evidence that the sporger(s)
actually read the responses to their attacks, I'd like to see if it
provides any further clues to their identity.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion?


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

It could be an ego issue: He demonstrates his power to disrupt
thousands of users. Or it could be a means of encoding messages
within multiple articles al la spread spectrum technique. Or
something else.

I'm sure what you are saying is correct, but not in this case. The
question was how much fuel the Mustang held in the main wing tanks. The
answer was simple and straight forward; 92 gals.
This particular "moderator" felt the entire post, question and answer,
was in his opinion not related to the forum's main topic which was WW2.
Since the 51 was a WW2 fighter, and it's fuel capacity could be directly
related to it's range and subsequently it's combat effectiveness, my
reasoning would be that the question was highly relevant to the forum.
Difference of opinion actually, but enough going against my grain of
what is on and off topic and in context that it was enough to cause me
to not wish further exposure to this environment.
Just went against my sense of logic and I tend to try and avoid things
that go against my sense of logic.
Dudley Henriques

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:57:53 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

and received a notice from the
"moderator" telling me that my answer wouldn't be posted as it was
irrelevant.

The moderator probably didn't understand what you wrote. That is one of
the major problems with moderators that try to be content-sensitive (not
all do this, BTW): they need to understand the content.

We've a moderated mailing list for our town. For most threads (what's a
good restaurant, where can I buy a dohickey, does anyone want to buy my
dohickey, etc), it's fine. And it does keep down the noise which might
cause some of the "lighter souls" to depart.

But the moment the issue becomes at all complex (municipal finance, land
use, etc.) and numbers or reference citations start to fly, most of the
moderators do a terrible job. It's common for a some of them to reject
postings as "not about our town" when they see references to articles
about those same issues being faces elsewhere; they don't even bother
reading the articles to see whether there's something to be applied
locally.

It's a pity, as I otherwise like the idea of extending our community into
online media.

- Andrew