| |
Main
Date: 18 Aug 2007 10:33:12
From:
Subject: sad time for SAA
|
What 's wrong with SAA these last days ?
Sad time for this newsgroup :-((
Is the good time over ?
-- Thierry (luxorion)
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2007 12:16:28
From:
Subject: Re: SAA blues
|
On Aug 18, 9:49 pm, "Hooker Booker" <H...@nospam.com > wrote:
> Why would someone go to such extreme lengths and flood this with pure junk
> in such a way. Someone has some insane obsession with this group to come up
> with this new variety of spam. Probably incorporating many computers. It's
> an invasion not seen before here.
Hi
It isn't just this news group. I would suspect that it is more than
100 groups
are currently getting hit. Would you think there was a connection
between this
group and something like it.comp.retcomputing? Not likely.
This guy is not that particular about any specific group. I'd guess
his selection
method is based on the volume of the groups useage. The higher the
useage
the more likely it is getting hit.
Also, as Chris has said, it isn't new either.
Dwight
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:40:45
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: SAA blues
|
On Aug 18, 9:49 pm, "Hooker Booker" <H...@nospam.com > wrote:
> Why would someone go to such extreme lengths and flood this with pure junk
> in such a way. Someone has some insane obsession with this group to come up
> with this new variety of spam. Probably incorporating many computers. It's
> an invasion not seen before here.
What makes you think these are extreme lengths?
Effectively the provocateur obtained one of those travesty generators
used in spam, obtained a list of open nntp feeds and are getting their
laughts.
Doubtful this is the work of a child, more likely it's one whom has
had his/her/its pride injured by one or more parties here and have
elected to act as a group spoiler, since they can't have their own way
by force of logic and/or knowledge. In short, they pointlessly crap-
flood the forum so no one else may have any discussion.
A friend dubbed these sort "the no fun club" If they can't have fun,
then no one else may either.
Eventually they'll tire (unless they /really are/ metally disturbed
and dedicate their life to this work) and move on.
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:52:16
From: Rich
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
On Aug 18, 4:33 am, <Thierry > wrote:
> What 's wrong with SAA these last days ?
> Sad time for this newsgroup :-((
> Is the good time over ?
>
> -- Thierry (luxorion)
The ISPs don't care about usenet, it makes them no money so don't
expect any kind of spam resolutions.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 20:04:14
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Rich wrote:
> On Aug 18, 4:33 am, <Thierry> wrote:
>> What 's wrong with SAA these last days ?
>> Sad time for this newsgroup :-((
>> Is the good time over ?
>>
>> -- Thierry (luxorion)
>
> The ISPs don't care about usenet, it makes them no money so don't
> expect any kind of spam resolutions.
>
It wastes the product (bandwidth) they are selling. The more is taken
up with this junk, the less they can provide.
I see two options, one they address the problem (not too likely, but
the right thing to do), or they quit carrying usenet news feeds all
together. In fact it seems that someone earlier mentioned that their
ISP doesn't carry usent feeds any longer.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:51:15
From: Fred Ziflle
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
>It wastes the product (bandwidth) they are selling. The more is taken
>up with this junk, the less they can provide.
>
>I see two options, one they address the problem (not too likely, but
>the right thing to do), or they quit carrying usenet news feeds all
>together. In fact it seems that someone earlier mentioned that their
>ISP doesn't carry usent feeds any longer.
ISPs make no money on Usenet. It is not a product they are selling:
it's usually included. They sell bandwidth and profitable services. If
Usenet isn't profitable or becomes a problem, they nuke it. AOL nuked
it. My current broadband provider limits Usenet to 2GB/month. They
don't care what you download, but they solve the traffic issue by
limiting it.
There are Usenet providers - Supernews, Giganews, Terraserver... They
might care, but they have filtering services. They can afford to. They
charge for Usenet.
So although we might lament that our precious newsgroup is
compromised, the bigger issue is that the infrastructure is faulty,
but necessary. Love/hate kinda thing.
The Usenet bullies are in essence breaking the toy they are playing
with. When the toy is broken they'll go elsewhere - e-mail, web, DDOS,
etc.
In the meantime, all the rants going on here are feeding their
sociopathic need. The sickos NEED to see good folks fret. They're dogs
peeing on the bushes, marking their territory. The folks who openly
say, "It's no good here - I'm leaving" are lame, and empowering the
bullies.
How many times, how many forums, how many books does it say, "Ignore
them"? We're here because astronomy interests us. They're here because
they're interested in getting us riled. It's pointless to post
messages that there's a lot of garbage traffic. We can all tell that,
thank you. Masters of the obvious.
Chill out. They're kids (gotta love 'em!). They'll grow up, get bored,
or get killed eventually.
Remember previous weatherings: Abian, N@ncy, ... Who's still here here
and matters? There will always be chuckleheads. It's part of life.
It's not a good part, but pimples pop and heal eventually.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:34:38
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:51:15 -0700, Fred Ziflle
<FredZiffle@GreenAcres.com > wrote:
>ISPs make no money on Usenet. It is not a product they are selling:
>it's usually included. They sell bandwidth and profitable services.
By that logic, they make no money on web browsing. Nor on email. But the
logic is faulty. ISPs make money by selling access. The better the
access, the better the product, and (theoretically) the more money they
can make. If my ISP doesn't provide newsgroups, I go to another ISP.
It's part of the reason they make money off me.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 04:49:40
From: Hooker Booker
Subject: SAA blues
|
Why would someone go to such extreme lengths and flood this with pure junk
in such a way. Someone has some insane obsession with this group to come up
with this new variety of spam. Probably incorporating many computers. It's
an invasion not seen before here.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 04:49:39
From: Hooker Booker
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Why would someone go to such extreme lengths and flood this with pure junk
in such a way. Someone has some insane obsession with this group to come up
with this new variety of spam. Probably incorporating many computers. It's
an invasion not seen before here.
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:raefc3pm2s535muhlhft7njvgisc9vva5l@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:51:15 -0700, Fred Ziflle
> <FredZiffle@GreenAcres.com> wrote:
>
>>ISPs make no money on Usenet. It is not a product they are selling:
>>it's usually included. They sell bandwidth and profitable services.
>
> By that logic, they make no money on web browsing. Nor on email. But the
> logic is faulty. ISPs make money by selling access. The better the
> access, the better the product, and (theoretically) the more money they
> can make. If my ISP doesn't provide newsgroups, I go to another ISP.
> It's part of the reason they make money off me.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 23:28:35
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:49:39 GMT, "Hooker Booker" <HB@nospam.com > wrote:
>Why would someone go to such extreme lengths and flood this with pure junk
>in such a way. Someone has some insane obsession with this group to come up
>with this new variety of spam. Probably incorporating many computers. It's
>an invasion not seen before here.
It is not spam. It is not new. It is not limited to this group- nearly
all groups get attacked this way occasionally. And it _has_ been seen
here before, at least twice in the last ten years. It always stops after
a week or two at the most.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:44:36
From: Fred Ziffle
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
>Chris L Peterson write:
>By that logic, they make no money on web browsing. Nor on email. But the
>logic is faulty. ISPs make money by selling access. The better the
>access, the better the product, and (theoretically) the more money they
>can make. If my ISP doesn't provide newsgroups, I go to another ISP.
>It's part of the reason they make money off me.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Web browsing costs an ISP no more
than what they expect to have to allocate to bandwidth. Once you have
an IP address, you're off and running from your own PC, using your own
resources. The ISP has no other costs for providing HTTP. Denying the
capability for web browsing would be expensive to institute on the
technical and sales sides, and be pointless. It is assumed web browing
is mostly why you want an IP address (yes, I know there's FTP, gopher,
Telnet, VPN, yadda yadda...).
E-mail however requires some resources on their part: storage, virus
and spam filtering, and administration. But e-mail is an essential
service that pretty much *everyone* who gets Internet access wants. It
would be very bad for business indeed if they dropped e-mail. It's a
necessary expense to provide that service. Some provders put a limit
on that: the size of attachments, for instance. And even e-mail is not
a given necessity. With web-based e-mail accounts, the real essential
boils down again to one thing: an IP address on a broadband
connection. Even with DSL, you can purchase the IP address separately
from an e-mail (or other login) account. Probably with others, too.
Usenet is not profitable, may be an antiquated novelty, and it
requires resources: storage, administration, and feeds. Your ISP has
to connect to other NNTP services (and pay them) in order to propogate
the articles. They may have to provide more bandwidth: the loads are
unpredictable. Once it is no longer pofitable ("worth it"), they'll
drop Usenet. I gave examples of that. But all the nonsense gibberish
that you see posted here is *miniscule* compared to the everyday
traffic caused by the binary groups. So if enough of us complain to
the ISPs and ask why they don't filter this cr@p for us, they'll get
the message: drop Usenet - the natives are restless and it's a
headache to maintain.
There aren't that many people who find Usenet so essential that they
wouldn't consider paying a dedicated Usenet provider for the service.
Losing our business because of the loss of Usenet may or may not be
offset by the resource requirements created by the riff-raff who make
Usenet an unpleasant experience. It's probably satisfying to think
your one account holds sway with your ISP, but it just may not be that
important. AOL dropped it, and no biggie to them. If it's a small ISP,
maybe it is important. But eventually even the thousands of dollars
you pump into their company per year may not be enough.
In the meantime, we still have complete idiots here who quote the
nonsense gibberish in full, then complain about it. Internet Darwinism
at work.
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:15:04
From: Mark F.
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
This is why the internet and news groups needs to be rebuilt from the ground
up.
So NO one and just blast other people without knowing where it came from.
Sad to say this is just human nature of some people to ruin everyone else's
day.
Mark F.
Lord of all things.(grin)
<Thierry > wrote in message news:46c6ae2f$1@news.vo.lu...
> What 's wrong with SAA these last days ?
> Sad time for this newsgroup :-((
> Is the good time over ?
>
> -- Thierry (luxorion)
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 10:02:27
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Mark F. wrote:
> Sad to say this is just human nature of some people to ruin everyone else's
> day.
And much sadder still: it is also human nature for some group of people
to use it as an excuse to assume absolute control.
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com
To reply take out your eye
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:20:09
From: VicXnews
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in
news:c4b98$46c71805$4212a552$30470@TULAROSA.NET:
> Mark F. wrote:
>> Sad to say this is just human nature of some people to ruin everyone
>> else's day.
>
> And much sadder still: it is also human nature for some group of people
> to use it as an excuse to assume absolute control.
>
The republixxxans tried and failed ;-)
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:04:59
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> And much sadder still: it is also human nature for some group of people
> to use it as an excuse to assume absolute control.
>
From your keyboard to God's ears <g >
Bill
|
| |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 13:05:10
From: JanWillem
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Thierry wrote:
> What 's wrong with SAA these last days ?
> Sad time for this newsgroup :-((
> Is the good time over ?
>
> -- Thierry (luxorion)
Quite a few news groups have been or still are flooded with the same
kind of spam.
The NANA home page for spam fighters is:
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/
Also have a look at:
http://news.killfile.org/index.cgi?pattern=news.*
For cyber stalking have a look at:
http://www.haltabuse.org/help/whoa.shtml
Nanny
|
| | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:59:14
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
The thing that I don't get is that this has now been going on for
a few days and poses a clear problem. It's a huge waste of bandwidth
which in itself should motivate the ISPs to do something about it.
I guess the question is, what, if anything, can be done to defeat
these bots. I wonder if this is some sort of distributed DOS type
attack - that's one way to avoid tracing to the original source. In
that case all those people who have not patched their systems/servers
are partially to blame (assuming there were appropriate patches).
Again, such a waste of effort to destroy (or try to) something of
use to so many.
Esmail
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:28:10
From: JanWillem
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Esmail wrote:
> The thing that I don't get is that this has now been going on for
> a few days and poses a clear problem. It's a huge waste of bandwidth
> which in itself should motivate the ISPs to do something about it.
>
> I guess the question is, what, if anything, can be done to defeat
> these bots. I wonder if this is some sort of distributed DOS type
> attack - that's one way to avoid tracing to the original source. In
> that case all those people who have not patched their systems/servers
> are partially to blame (assuming there were appropriate patches).
>
> Again, such a waste of effort to destroy (or try to) something of
> use to so many.
>
> Esmail
>
>
All ISPs will have noticed by now, I hope.
See also:
http://security.rr.com/
Nanny
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 11:01:25
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
JanWillem wrote:
>
>
> All ISPs will have noticed by now, I hope.
>
> See also:
> http://security.rr.com/
>
> Nanny
hi, yes, I know they all have policies regarding spam etc, but as far
as RR is concerned where I am, nothing seems to have been done (or been
effective so far)
:-(
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 21:18:16
From: VicXnews
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
Esmail <ebonak_delme@hotmail.com > wrote in news:46c709c5$0$6450
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> JanWillem wrote:
>>
>>
>> All ISPs will have noticed by now, I hope.
>>
>> See also:
>> http://security.rr.com/
>>
>> Nanny
>
> hi, yes, I know they all have policies regarding spam etc, but as far
> as RR is concerned where I am, nothing seems to have been done (or been
> effective so far)
>
>:-(
compaint must be thru email...Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2007 16:16:24
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: sad time for SAA
|
"VicXnews" <news@news.com > wrote in message
news:smJxi.54625$rH6.18923@newsfe22.lga...
> Esmail <ebonak_delme@hotmail.com> wrote in news:46c709c5$0$6450
> $4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>> JanWillem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> All ISPs will have noticed by now, I hope.
>>>
>>> See also:
>>> http://security.rr.com/
>>>
>>> Nanny
>>
>> hi, yes, I know they all have policies regarding spam etc, but as far
>> as RR is concerned where I am, nothing seems to have been done (or been
>> effective so far)
>>
>>:-(
>
> compaint must be thru email...Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com
This is nothing this group hasn't survived before. And it's from the same
types of low-life, bed-wetters that it ALWAYS comes from... So why WORRY...
When their diaper rash is back in control, they will move on...
In the meantime, just DELETE them... It only takes a few SECONDS!!! DON'T
act like this is some sort of catastrophic disaster...
It's nothing more than a few psycho bed-wetters trying to demonstrate to
each other some level of self-esteem that they are simply incapable of
(along with bladder control)...
--
Jan Owen
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21
|
|
