On Jan 8, 5:59=A0pm, David Geesaman <dgeesamanNOS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> Janes wrote:
> > Okay, I know this is kinda far field, but at least it pertains to how
to=
> > regard the "bad manners" of spamming this group and whether we have
the
> > character and backbone to stand against it. Here's my take on why we
sho=
uld
> > not "take" spamming in the name of freedom of speech:
>
> David,
>
> I agree that spamming should be fought in any way practical.
>
> But it comes down to practicality. =A0Spam, like binaries and OT
> discussion, are not part of the charter that formed this *unmoderated*
> newsgroup years ago. =A0This group, like all others, was formed by a
small=
> group of usenet readers who collectively agreed upon a charter for the
> proposed group. =A0There is a protocol that says any group with a
charter
> and enough interested persons to meet a quorum (20 or so, IIRC) and news
> servers are obligated to include the group on their newsgroup list.
>
> The only ones in charge as I understand it, are the newsgroup providers,
> who can filter the messages they receive and pass onto their
> subscribers. =A0But as a general rule the number of filters that would
be
> required to stop spamming activity here over all the groups (which on
> newsguy.com numbers in the tens of thousands) is astronomical. =A0Plus,
> then it's a he-says/she-says between the "good guys" and "bad guys".
=A0So=
> the news providers don't do much of anything unless the spammer / weirdo
> is really causing major problems. =A0For unmoderated newsgroups, that
> leaves the usenet users.
>
> So you can reply to spammers, and hopefully they'll take your attacks to
> heart and go aways. =A0But most of them are semi-automated bots that are
> simply happy to know that their spam has been read and don't care about
> your approval. =A0The others are just weirdos who love any attention
they
> get, negative or positive and feel empowered by getting other people
> riled up. =A0Unless that poster has shown a semblance of personality
I've
> found it's a lost cause to engage a spammer in any way. =A0I personally
> don't have time to try fighting off a spammer - the strongest deterrent
> is consistently high on-topic discussion.
>
> Yes, it's unfortunate, but the wildness that permitted Usenet to
> flourish early on today resembles a cancer that can kill some groups
> completely. =A0I take it as it is. =A0If/when it becomes prohibitive
I'll
> probably focus on moderated webforums or some other form of media, but
> I'll stick to Usenet as long as I can.
>
> Dave
The MI5 nutjob is definitely using a bot. Have you checked him out? He
is on literally thousands of newsgroups plus on lots if moderated
webforums as well.
I use google groups these days and so can't filter him. I re****ted him
to google and his original email address was banned, but the last
bunch of posts were from multiple yahoo accounts plus he cut up the
subject headings so any subject filters wouldn't pick them out. I
wouldn't mind finding a free newsreader. I used to use Agent but I
don't use newsgroups anymore except this one.
I think high-speed connections are another thing that have dealt a
body blow to Usenet. The old newsreaders used to dial up, download
messages then disconnect. You could read your messages, respond, hit
"reply later", and all your responses would go in your mail box for
the next time you went online. These days there are many more forums
on webpages that I read than there are newsgroups.
|
