Re: Order entry service available

From: Eric <eric_at_deptj.eu>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:55:02 +0000
Message-ID: <slrnjjj8mm.4n0.eric_at_teckel.deptj.eu>

On 2012-02-13, joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:54?pm, Eric <e..._at_deptj.eu> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-13, joel garry <joel-ga..._at_home.com> wrote:
>>

<snip>
>>
>> > Not pointless, it is for the other millions of spammers who might not
>> > realize they are spammers and look before posting.
>>
>> Naive.
>
> Quixotic, not naive. Only the magnitude of effect is arguable, if you
> think it is entirely null, the naivete is obvious.
>
>>
>> > Not sure why you say he _can't_ remove a posting, doesn't most posting
>> > software have such an option?
>>
>> This is Usenet, the only way to remove a posting is to send a
>> cancellation, and
>>
>> 1) there is no absolute guarantee that a cancellation will reach all the
>> ? ?servers the message did
>>
>> 2) many servers ignore cancellations since they are quite easy to forge
>>
>> 3) some of the servers that ignore cancellations keep publicly
>> ? ?accessible archives.
>
> That's true, but you are being entirely too mechanistic. You are
> incorrectly assuming that because some cancels are ignored, all will
> be and everyone will always be using servers that ignore.

Some cancels are ignored (more than you think, I suspect). If the message is anywhere, someone may respond without snipping the Spam bit, then it is everywhere again.

> That's like saying "don't use antibiotics because it will cause
> resistance." True about the resistance, but do you really want to be
> a blind syphilitic?

Anyone saying something like that is (I hope) actually meaning "don't take them all the time for every little thing even when they are known not to work". So not a valid analogy really.

> What you seem to be missing is that as an unmoderated forum, we have
> to work in tandem to netcop. Different people have different ideas on
> how to do that, and since there are different spamming attacks -
> spammers are not a homogenous group, the merely clueless might watch
> and learn from responses - there needs be different defense
> mechanisms. Amazingly enough, despite so many "death of usenet"
> assertions that it is a very old joke about "news at 11," this group
> is still here and useful. Many of us have been here since before the
> beginning (which isn't a non sequitur, it used to be cdo before
> cdos). Some of us have seen that chest-pounding and clear assertions
> do work against spammers - logic is not the primary factor, behavior
> is.

I have no problem with different views on how to treat spammers, but of course I may choose to comment.

From what you said plus the fact that you are posting through Google, I was inclined to believe that you had no idea how Usenet worked, and I answered on that basis. On the other hand I too have been here for a long time, so I strongly suspected otherwise. Indirect education of others again, perhaps? :)

By the way, I never saw the original spam post, only your answer to it! No, I don't think it was cancelled, but I do have some filters.

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry

Received on Mon Feb 13 2012 - 17:55:02 CST