Re: How to interpret this

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <a71fa1c9-5026-43c4-85ca-27c3f5074f5c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Schwartz wrote:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

No, I just can't leave prejudice like Moe's unanswered. It was Moe's
choice to throw that in, not mine.

Actually, that NOTE gets automatically included when-ever I reply to
a google-poster.

It's off-topic and, IMO, inappropriate. He has no evidence, it's his
personal prejudice.

"I have no evidence" - Tell me - how many people responded to this
thread. How many of them stated that they filter googlegroups.com
in other news groups? How many stated they do not? Sorry David,
it's not a personal prejudice - it's a fact of life. You can deny it
as much as you want, and that makes no difference. Remember also that
those who filter googlegroups.com globally or filter it in this group
haven't see your post, although like me, they may see other people
responding to your posts.

Again, what is Moe's evidence that this is true?

All right - what is YOUR evidence that it is not true?

Or that a small number of especially vocal people must mean there's a
silent majority?

"a small majority of especially vocal people who normally answer
questions. Those of us who do tend not to have time to waste on
spam. If you have plenty of time to read the spam AND answer technical
questions, more power to you. Why have I not seen this?

I have been posting through google for *years* and have not seen this.

I guess because it's difficult to see what everyone is doing. You have
no evidence how many people are reading googleposts and not answering
them, any more than you have evidence that people are using killfiles
or score files or similar, and not seeing the posts.

If all he has is anecdotal evidence, then my anecdotal evidence in the
other direction is just as good as his.

As above - how many people responded to this thread?

I have *never* seen any post go unanswered in this newsgroup, except
where the post was so confused that I don't think any intelligent
answer was possible.

My spool only has 6 days on it, and I'm filtering some spam off the
feed (or did you see someone respond to the googlespam for athletic
wear), and of the 98 articles in the spool (116 were offered, but 18
got killed), it see 17 subjects (16 if you ignore the stats file).
4 of them have no responses.

How can you terminate the offender if you don't know who the offender
is?

So you think the spammers are using a different IP address every time
they post their spam? I guess you don't bother to look at the
headers.

The ability to get the offender terminated is good but anonymity
is good too. You can't have 100% of both.

Yes, and luckily most of the anonymous posting services have obvious
consistencies in their headers so that people can killfile them. The
problem with such posting services is they are trivial to abuse, and
are often used abusively. Or do you feel that there is someone in a
police state who NEEDS to post to comp.os.linux.* without the
authorities knowing about it? Your argument is ludicrous. By the
way, is it true that all ISPs require a picture ID to get an account?
Yeah, right.

Google's allowing anonymous speech is one of the reasons they have
so much spam.

And you feel that everyone must view this spam? You think they don't
filter it off? Gee, that must reduce the chance of legitimate
posters using the spammy provider getting seen.

If google wanted to control the spam coming from their servers, they
could do so TRIVIALLY. Delay the post until it passes a spam filter.
If you think that hard, you haven't been using killfiles.

And they will lose out on the value of the anonymous speech.

Oh, that's simply terrible.

Old guy
.

Relevant Pages

  • FAQ: Canonical list of questions Beavis refuses to answer (V1.40) (was Re: Is my email server being
    ... Although Beavis has been posting for a long time, he always remains silent on the subjects enumerated below. ... His response, if any, usually consists of replying to the parent post with a loud proclamation that his Usenet-reading software runs a magical filter that automatically identifies anyone who's making fun of him, and hides those offensive posts. ... If spammers avoid forging real E-mail addresses on spam, then where do all these bounces everyone reports getting come from? ...
    (comp.mail.misc)
  • Re: -- Lets zap the spam
    ... Message body: ... Set up a filter for sci.math that kills all articles ... that almost every spam message will be gone from your screen. ... Keep spam in sci.math off your screen: When posting a new subject to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: UDP *googlegroups*
    ... filter most of the spam out of another service they offer, ... the spammers who have flagrantly abused their posting host services. ... filters to their newsreaders to kill Google groups. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: UDP *googlegroups*
    ... filter most of the spam out of another service they offer, ... the spammers who have flagrantly abused their posting host services. ... filters to their newsreaders to kill Google groups. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: I Want An Easier, Faster, Better CAD Tool
    ... Current Spam thresholds and guidelines. ... Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting. ... The thresholds for spam cancels are based only on one or more of the ... "What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes ...
    (comp.cad.solidworks)
Loading