non-censorous spam control (was Re: Spam is Information?)

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} dformosa at
Fri Aug 8 06:50:17 PDT 1997


On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:


> Why do people try to flood newsgroups with shit?

I can see a number of resons

1) For profet (pron4porn ect)
2) To prevent discution that thay do not like (Sientology, the poatry
3) To the amusument of there small minds (trollers ect)
4) By accedent (ARRM, other spews)
5) Out of shear madness  (Dr Rouger Rabbit)


> Examples from the Net.Scum rogue collection: Scott Kellog from Sematech
> falsely accuses various people of "spamming" his newsgroup, but hasn't
> been caught forging cancels yet.

But lieing is free speach isn't it? 
As long as he is not forging cancels I don't see anything wrong with the
little troll having some fun.

>  On the other hand Bob Curtis has taken
> over alt.smokers.cigars and forges cancels for articles that merely
> question his "ownership" of the newsgroup. Do read - it's very enlightening.

IRC Bob Curtis was sent away with his tail between his legs.

> They argue that according to Hardin, Usenet would be
> used more "efficiently" if every newsgroup had an "owner"

I don't see anywhere that being suggested.  Most peaple suggest that
Usenet would work better if peaple stopped abuseing it.

I don't trust the newsgroup care peaple any further then I can kick them.
In fact I have been encourgaing them to stop.


> The good news is that newsgroup floods don't really hurt anyone except
> the egos of the assholes who claim to "own' the affected newsgroups.

And the newsevers and the regular readers.


> > Here we aggry, porn4pron and others will still make a proffet from
> > spamming.


> I like the idea of encouraging news readers to send e-cash (possibly via
> anon remailers) to the posters whose writings they like and would like to
> see more of.

A local bank (to me anyway) offers e-cash.  I'll see how I can contrabue
to makeing the usenet a better place.


> And my response is:
> why not just killfile the idiots, or why not choose to not select
> their crap for reading - it's easily identifiable.

Its not realy.  All you get is a war where your spamer becomes more
sofistercated in there spaming to avoid the filters.

> Do you remember all the talk about "intelligent internet agents" who were
> supposed to look for stuff we're interested in

I belave this is the idear behind  Mr Hayes' newsreader.


> > I have attempted to do so in the past,  and will attempt to do so again.
> There's some interesting discussion going on there in addition to my xposts.

I have again requested entery.  No responce yet.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett

Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv


More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list