Обсуждение: various spam
Hi, I sent a different message to this list, but foolishly included the message I was trying to target. It's the emm-eye-five nonsense originating from Usenet. Is there some way for us to block that completely, so it doesn't all have to be moderated? A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now. --J.D. Baldwin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yes, its doable, but not very pretty ... unless Alvarre knows another way, bu t you can modify the access_rules file to add in a rule that says to just reject the message ... you can do it based on sender, subject, and can even set things up to do it based on other headers ... - --On Friday, June 08, 2007 10:33:39 -0400 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > I sent a different message to this list, but foolishly included the > message I was trying to target. It's the emm-eye-five nonsense > originating from Usenet. Is there some way for us to block that > completely, so it doesn't all have to be moderated? > > A > -- > Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca > I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what > you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now. > --J.D. Baldwin > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGaXVm4QvfyHIvDvMRAkErAJ9Tp2VUG602osHRJR3mealEQcK9SgCg6bPS WF5fus0/ILYzBv/1fFzhcEA= =MIg8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Yes, its doable, but not very pretty ... unless Alvarre knows another way, bu t > you can modify the access_rules file to add in a rule that says to just reject > the message ... you can do it based on sender, subject, and can even set things > up to do it based on other headers ... Why not block it before it ever hits the lists? Joshua D. Drake > > - --On Friday, June 08, 2007 10:33:39 -0400 Andrew Sullivan > <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I sent a different message to this list, but foolishly included the >> message I was trying to target. It's the emm-eye-five nonsense >> originating from Usenet. Is there some way for us to block that >> completely, so it doesn't all have to be moderated? >> >> A >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca >> I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what >> you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now. >> --J.D. Baldwin >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > > > - ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org > Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) > > iD8DBQFGaXVm4QvfyHIvDvMRAkErAJ9Tp2VUG602osHRJR3mealEQcK9SgCg6bPS > WF5fus0/ILYzBv/1fFzhcEA= > =MIg8 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:44:12AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Why not block it before it ever hits the lists? I guess the problem is that it's not exactly spam, so you'd need an AI engine to figure out what it was and block it. It actually is, as near as I can tell, a bunch of people who are convinced that emm-eye-five are out to get them. The reason Usenet became worthless is not just that October never came, but that the metal hospitals all got hooked up to it. Every nutbar freak in the world thinks it's their holy duty to cross post to all of creation. To add insult to injury, those who are opposed to this sort of nonsense forge posts from the above people and cross-post _those_ all over hell and creation. This was a favourite tactic some years ago by self-appointed guardians of Usenet. The idea was that if you pissed off the cabal enough, they'd take action of some unspecified type which would solve the problem in a way that nobody was ever able to quite explain. It was never anything better than vigilantism, but now it's just vandalism. Anyway, I guess we'll just keep moderating and hope the failure to get past moderation will cause the paranoid nutbars and their antagonists to go somewhere else. Some days I hate the Internet :) A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace. --Philip Greenspun
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:44:12AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Why not block it before it ever hits the lists?
>
> I guess the problem is that it's not exactly spam, so you'd need an
> AI engine to figure out what it was and block it.
Is there not some standard keywords within the post that we can block?
Or even a specific phrase? Or block the email addresses?
Joshua D. Drake
>
> It actually is, as near as I can tell, a bunch of people who are
> convinced that emm-eye-five are out to get them. The reason Usenet
> became worthless is not just that October never came, but that the
> metal hospitals all got hooked up to it. Every nutbar freak in the
> world thinks it's their holy duty to cross post to all of creation.
>
> To add insult to injury, those who are opposed to this sort of
> nonsense forge posts from the above people and cross-post _those_ all
> over hell and creation. This was a favourite tactic some years ago
> by self-appointed guardians of Usenet. The idea was that if you
> pissed off the cabal enough, they'd take action of some unspecified
> type which would solve the problem in a way that nobody was ever able
> to quite explain. It was never anything better than vigilantism, but
> now it's just vandalism.
>
> Anyway, I guess we'll just keep moderating and hope the failure to
> get past moderation will cause the paranoid nutbars and their
> antagonists to go somewhere else. Some days I hate the Internet :)
>
> A
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Anyway, I guess we'll just keep moderating and hope the failure to > get past moderation will cause the paranoid nutbars and their > antagonists to go somewhere else. Some days I hate the Internet :) Nope: I've been filtering out the em-eye-five stuff for years from the PG lists. It tends to come in waves. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200706081201 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFGaX1fvJuQZxSWSsgRA+nIAJwOfVZf/APccgxDAxlg/x2gF4ModgCfTGD3 zr2zmrFRtkHAQ3vtC9/e1sk= =L504 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Is there not some standard keywords within the post that we can block? We're already getting sort of bitten by this; so I'd sort of prefer not. If these messages don't set off whatever antispam system we've in place (and we must have one, because I don't see _that_ much spam in the stuff I have to moderate), then I think the processing will be too costly. > Or even a specific phrase? Or block the email addresses? I'll have a look at the email addresses and see if they're consistent. They're often forged, though. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now. --J.D. Baldwin
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Is there not some standard keywords within the post that we can block? > > We're already getting sort of bitten by this; so I'd sort of prefer > not. If these messages don't set off whatever antispam system we've > in place (and we must have one, because I don't see _that_ much spam > in the stuff I have to moderate), then I think the processing will be > too costly. I don't think this is worth the trouble. It took me 20 seconds to reject the first 5 messages, and another 10 seconds to reject the following 5. And I didn't even care to check whether some of these were already rejected by someone else (the replies from Majordomo told me that some were), because it was pretty obvious that they were not valid for these lists. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4 Management by consensus: I have decided; you concede. (Leonard Liu)
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 12:15:51PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I don't think this is worth the trouble. It took me 20 seconds to > reject the first 5 messages, and another 10 seconds to reject the > following 5. Right, I don't think it's that it's so much work now. When I've been in newsgroups where this started to happen, though, in short order there were hundreds of these things. They seem to be a DoS on Usenet, because clueless people cross-post from all the other listed groups. That's mostly what I was worried about. Anyway, we've probably already spent more time discussing it than just dealing with it will take :-/ A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do sir? --attr. John Maynard Keynes