Re Turbo C moron spam

[1jam]

Anyone recommend some filter rules to killfile these morons?

IT looks like they are all using google groups, and the posting IPs are in
India. I don't think my newsreader is fancy enough to geo locate IPs tho..
hmm

 

[Eric Sosman]

Anyone recommend some filter rules to killfile these morons?

IT looks like they are all using google groups, and the posting IPs are in
India. I don't think my newsreader is fancy enough to geo locate IPs tho..

(India? I thought it was Bangladesh.) Anyhow, I'm having
some success filtering on NNTP-Posting-Host; I've only seen about
half a dozen distinct domains. I'm AND-ing the IP's with @gmail.com
to avoid using too broad a brush.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Anyone recommend some filter rules to killfile these morons?

IT looks like they are all using google groups, and the posting IPs are in
India. I don't think my newsreader is fancy enough to geo locate IPs tho..
hmm

In thunderbird:

From contains gmail.com

 

[Keith Thompson]

In thunderbird:

From contains gmail.com

That's overkill. People can post using gmail.com addresses without
using the Google Groups news server. (I have no idea how many actually
do so.)

 

[Rui Maciel]

In thunderbird:

From contains gmail.com

Congratulations, you just blocked me. And countless other users.


Rui Maciel

 

[Sjouke Burry]

That's overkill. People can post using gmail.com addresses without
using the Google Groups news server. (I have no idea how many actually
do so.)

Well, if you can show a better way, I would gladly use it,
as long as it is for Thunderbird.
Bur I checked quite a few of them , and their common part
is @gmail.com.......
Which they have in common with quite a few other trolls and sales-ads.
And I dont see Google blocking their IP or something.
But maybe Google might surprise us.(I am not going to wait for that....)

 

[spinoza1111]

Anyone recommend some filter rules to killfile these morons?

IT looks like they are all using google groups, and the posting IPs are in
India. I don't think my newsreader is fancy enough to geo locate IPs tho...
hmm

Actually, they are asking good questions, which the regs here (being
technicians uneducated for the most part in computer science) can't
even begin to answer.

 

[Nick Keighley]

That's overkill.  People can post using gmail.com addresses without
using the Google Groups news server.  (I have no idea how many actually
do so.)

and vice versa

 

[Nick Keighley]

Well, if you can show a better way, I would gladly use it,
as long as it is for Thunderbird.
Bur I checked quite a few of them , and their common part
is @gmail.com.......
Which they have in common with quite a few other trolls and sales-ads.
And I dont see Google blocking their IP or something.
But maybe Google might surprise us.(I am not going to wait for that....)- Hide quoted text -

I've reported a couple of them for spam but I'm not holding my breath

 

[Noob]

Congratulations, you just blocked me. And countless other users.

Messages sent through googoo groups have an Organization
field set to http://groups.google.com

I use the following rule for the IUT sporge.

Organization contains groups.google.com
AND
From contains @gmail.com
AND
Subject doesn't contain Re:

Action: Ignore Thread

 

[Phil Carmody]

Well, if you can show a better way, I would gladly use it,
as long as it is for Thunderbird.
Bur I checked quite a few of them , and their common part
is @gmail.com.......

This is a *_WAY_* bigger common part:

X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)

Phil

 

[August Karlstrom]

On 2010-05-18 10:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]

or
bite the bullet and get a real email address. [...]
gmail.com is a very strong indicator that the contents of the article
are not worth reading,

Nonsense. What's not *real* about Gmail? Its popularity is very real.


August

 

[August Karlstrom]

On 2010-05-18 10:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]

or
bite the bullet and get a real email address. [...]
gmail.com is a very strong indicator that the contents of the article
are not worth reading,

Nonsense. What's not *real* about Gmail? Its popularity is very real.

That is what I think of as the "manure fallacy": "Eat manure. Ten
billion flies can't be wrong."

That is a misinterpretation of what I said. Your reasoning seems to be:
Several comp.lang.c spammers use a Gmail address, therefore Gmail must
be a bad service. What do you mean by "real" anyway.


August

 

[Kenny McCormack]

On 2010-05-18 10:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]

or
bite the bullet and get a real email address. [...]
gmail.com is a very strong indicator that the contents of the article
are not worth reading,

Nonsense. What's not *real* about Gmail? Its popularity is very real.


August

So is God (very popular). But equally unreal.

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

 

[Noob]

No, my reasoning is the other way around: gmail is a free, easily
abusable service, and therefore many people who wish to behave abusively
use gmail. (This same reasoning applies to any free, easily abusable
email or Usenet service.) As for "real", it's just a colloquialism.

The fact that some decent folks use gmail (you, for one) does not mean
that filtering on it doesn't make sense for those wishing to cut out
vast swathes of the junk that permeates Usenet.

NB: providing a gmail.com address in the "From" field, and posting
through the googoo Groups interface are strictly orthogonal.

Or are they? Is it mandatory to provide a valid gmail address when
posting through Google Groups?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

NB: providing a gmail.com address in the "From" field, and posting
through the googoo Groups interface are strictly orthogonal.

Or are they? Is it mandatory to provide a valid gmail address when
posting through Google Groups?

No. It is not. I have never had (and never will have) a gmail email,
and I have posted via GG.

--

No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.

CLC in a nutshell.

 

[August Karlstrom]

No, my reasoning is the other way around: gmail is a free, easily
abusable service, and therefore many people who wish to behave abusively
use gmail. (This same reasoning applies to any free, easily abusable
email or Usenet service.) As for "real", it's just a colloquialism.

The fact that some decent folks use gmail (you, for one) does not mean
that filtering on it doesn't make sense for those wishing to cut out
vast swathes of the junk that permeates Usenet.

OK, I see your point.


August

 

[August Karlstrom]

On 2010-05-18 10:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]

or
bite the bullet and get a real email address. [...]
gmail.com is a very strong indicator that the contents of the article
are not worth reading,

Nonsense. What's not *real* about Gmail? Its popularity is very real.


August

So is God (very popular). But equally unreal.

Agreed.


August

 

[Seebs]

On 2010-05-18 10:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]

or
bite the bullet and get a real email address. [...]
gmail.com is a very strong indicator that the contents of the article
are not worth reading,

Nonsense. What's not *real* about Gmail? Its popularity is very real.

Yes. But so, especially, is its popularity with people who want a throwaway
address because they're spamming or trolling. If I see an article from a
gmail address I haven't previously seen, the chances are better than even
that the article is junk.

This comes back to Google's general attitude of complete unconcern about
Usenet abuse. (Not that the staff wouldn't like to do a good job, but
Google has no interest in funding an abuse department anywhere NEAR big
enough.)

-s

 

[Nick Keighley]

No.  It is not.  I have never had (and never will have) a gmail email,
and I have posted via GG.

likewise (just in case everyone has Kenny killed)