Hi,
What software can I use to send cancel messages?
I'd like to be able to respond after the fact to things like the recent
spam to a number of alt.* newsgroups.
I can cancel them on my news server, but that only removes them from the
news spool. It does not send a cancel message, thus they don't
propagate to other servers.
What software can I use to send cancel messages?
I'd like to be able to respond after the fact to things like the recent
spam to a number of alt.* newsgroups.
I can cancel them on my news server, but that only removes them from the
news spool. It does not send a cancel message, thus they don't
propagate to other servers.
You've been on Usenet for close to three decades and you have no idea
what could possibly be wrong with setting up a server to accept
third-party cancels? Not to mention the inefficiency of generating a
cancel message per article?
You've been on Usenet for close to three decades and you have no
idea what could possibly be wrong with setting up a server to accept third-party cancels? Not to mention the inefficiency of generating
a cancel message per article?
I suppose you could issue NoCeMs if you could convince anyone to act on
them.
If you are seeing spam, then look for patterns and adjust your own spam countermeasures.
btw, Russ's rant is about to be old enough to drink. https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/rant.html
Maybe he should write one, and call it ARMM2.
On 3/15/21 11:11 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
btw, Russ's rant is about to be old enough to drink. <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/rant.html>
It's going to be a while before something from 2013 can drink.
2034 by my math based on my understanding of drinking age.
On 3/15/21 11:11 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
You've been on Usenet for close to three decades and you have no
idea what could possibly be wrong with setting up a server to accept >>third-party cancels? Not to mention the inefficiency of generating
a cancel message per article?
Actually only about half that long. I've only cared about cancels for a
very short period. Or more specifically Usenet news spam.
Yes, I do know how it can be abused.
None of that changes the fact that I see cancel messages every single day.
Some would argue that Usenet is nothing but spam and should be
abandoned. Yet here we are using arguably abandoned technology. So ....
My overall goal, independent of how it's done, cancels or otherwise, is
to remove spam from my server /and/ make the information available for
others to do so if they choose such.
I'm quite content to sit in my little corner of Usenet and clean my own >spools and tell the rest of you .... But I was trying to be nice /
generous.
I suppose you could issue NoCeMs if you could convince anyone to act on >>them.
I will explore that option.
Thank you for the alternate suggestion.
If you are seeing spam, then look for patterns and adjust your own spam >>countermeasures.
That only helps me personally. That does nothing for my servers or
other users thereof. So, client side filtering is even less effective
than local server cancels.
btw, Russ's rant is about to be old enough to drink. >>https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/writing/rant.html
It's going to be a while before something from 2013 can drink. 2034 by
my math based on my understanding of drinking age.
My overall goal, independent of how it's done, cancels or otherwise, is
to remove spam from my server /and/ make the information available for
others to do so if they choose such.
I'm quite content to sit in my little corner of Usenet and clean my own spools and tell the rest of you .... But I was trying to be nice /
generous.
I suppose you could issue NoCeMs if you could convince anyone to act on
them.
I will explore that option.
To be clear, NoCeMs basically failed and issuing them is going to be
a whole lot of work for probably no actual benefit because we never
solved the problem of how to set up the infrastructure in an easy
enough way that anyone would turn them on. But they're technically
at least a better solution because they're authenticated, so at
least in theory I can honor your NoCeMs and not the ones from some
Internet rando.
To be clear, NoCeMs basically failed and issuing them is going to be a
whole lot of work for probably no actual benefit because we never solved
the problem of how to set up the infrastructure in an easy enough way that anyone would turn them on.
~sigh~
Thank you fort your comments Russ.
On 3/17/21 11:43 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
To be clear, NoCeMs basically failed and issuing them is going to be
a whole lot of work for probably no actual benefit because we never
solved the problem of how to set up the infrastructure in an easy
enough way that anyone would turn them on. But they're technically
at least a better solution because they're authenticated, so at
least in theory I can honor your NoCeMs and not the ones from some
Internet rando.
I'll explore NoCeMs as it sounds like it's a way that I can (manually) publish that I think given messages are spam. This way any server that
has chosen to honor my NoCeMs can benefit. It also means that my small network of multiple news servers can verify and trust my NoCeMs or any
others that I configure it to trust.
Russ Allbery schrieb:
To be clear, NoCeMs basically failed and issuing them is going to be a
whole lot of work for probably no actual benefit because we never
solved the problem of how to set up the infrastructure in an easy
enough way that anyone would turn them on.
I'm not sure that nobody is honoring NoCems - I do :), and more
important, servers like news.individual.net do.
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
My overall goal, independent of how it's done, cancels or otherwise, is
to remove spam from my server /and/ make the information available for
others to do so if they choose such.
I'm quite content to sit in my little corner of Usenet and clean my own
spools and tell the rest of you .... But I was trying to be nice /
generous.
The practical problem is that cancels don't work for that purpose, and you can see why by reading a bit farther back into this group to see a
discussion with some guy who's running an open news server and allowing people to post cancels through it and whose reaction when people asked him not to do that was "if you honor cancels, you're an idiot, so fuck you."
I checked my control.cancel group right now and there are quite few
cancels sent by entities like “bleachbot” or “Eric M.” Who’s Eric M.,
and why is he deciding which messages have to disappear? And why is he
any better at that than any other random person from Internet? I checked random message that he cancelled, and while I can’t read French, it
seems to be legit post by someone named Zorro to fr.bienvenue
newsgroup. Not an ad, typed in manually, sent via newsreader. Who’s
Zorro and why Eric is canceling him? Is Zorro posting something inappropriate or Eric just don’t like the guy? Is fr.bienvenue belongs
to Eric and he have any kind of authority over that group? Does not seem
like that group is moderated. And if Eric gets to cancel someone else’s posts why any other random Internet person can’t do the same?
All these questions can be avoided by not honoring non-authenticated
cancel messages.
Is Zorro posting something inappropriate or Eric just don’t like the guy?
Is fr.bienvenue belongs to Eric and he have any kind of authority over that group?
Does not seem like that group is moderated. And if Eric gets to
cancel someone else’s posts why any other random Internet person can’t do the same? All these questions can be avoided by not honoring non-authenticated cancel messages.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:08:58 |
| Calls: | 9,820 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,102 |