On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 13:02:13 -0500, you wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 23:42:34 -0500, Batman <TheB@t.Cave> wrote:
>
> I'm top-posting on purpose. Such a rebel.
I'm intraposting if that's ok.
>
> If you're a TL;DR type, close, delete, PLONK, done. And, yes, you'll
> need your Dick Tracy decoder ring.
>
> Here's a new Chris Farley skit premise...
>
> "Re-, remember that time, when you thought that some dropped posts
> were caused by something sinister, and not because of a server
> malfunction, and then, and then you reposted them, and, and they were
> fine?
>
> "That was awesome!"
>
> Fundamentally, spammers post to get traffic (and because they CAN),
> which ultimately benefits them. Whether it's to get people to sign up
> and pay for content, or to spread malware intended to gain access to
> others' info/money, or to trap someone into downloading contraband,
> for which they potentially could be prosecuted or extorted. If anyone
> hasn't learned not to follow links on Usenet spam posts (or running
> dowloaded executables), they'll get little sympathy from this
> keyboard.
>
> As a veteran "programmer" (do YOU know what a 3270 is?) I would
> speculate that the "post description" spammers (let's call them PD)
> are using analytics (however crude, i.e., where's shit like ours being
> posted/cross-posted in groups we target?) to determine where to aim
> their **automated** postings and in what quantity. Their specific
> motives can only be speculated upon, although I so suspect that they
> are sinister, either LEA or malware distributors. It always cracks me
> up when anyone indignantly responds to one of their posts, as if the
> spammers are taking the time to read responses to the thousands of
> groups they target daily, if not more frequently.
If the spammers use software to automate their posts then why not
software to pickup responses automatically? Tag them. Responses
may mean income or they may mean trouble. I've seen such an irate
poster take such firm TOS action with a multi-group spammer that
the spammer came back at him and called him a "proselytizing prick"
- novel nomenclature that was so ... erudite ... I still remember
it (who the fuck even knows what proselytize means?) So, even one
exception means you're wrong.
>
> For example, while the PD spammers post in puffies, where veteran
> PuffAdder (once the target of DMCA complaints) has been relentlessly
> posting new material and re-posting old (SA-LOOT!), PD's posts there
> have been minimal. But some of the other spammers (girlsfiles, vip,
> etc.) have been fairly prolific. Same over in earlmiller with regard
> to PD, the others, not so much.
>
> As for poultry, it hasn't been so long ago that Ducky and Hades tried
> to use that group to escape from the whining idiot, Hessy, who
> incessantly threatened to report just about every post that wasn't
> his, which were boring at best. So that group was likely on PD's radar
> anyway, and your batches just woke them to it. FWIW, how I spotted the
> behind-the-house set, my software has the capability to flag
> cross-posts, and that one set showed up as such. I just followed the
> posts' headers and there they were, along with another interesting
> post that Binsearch (and other SE's) did not reveal - "Some Pretty
> Faces from BD." Recall that YOU posted that breadcrumb some months
> ago, telling followers (nay, desciples ;^) to seek the groups that had
> those posts, because you were considering using them. Could it be that
> PD added all of those groups to their targets? Hmmmmm...
>
> I've been on Usenet long enough to remember the "grannies" sporge-wars
> by Joe Blob (Simon what's-his-fuck)/Hugh G Rection/Bobblehead Bob over
> in OW, and the "trannies" by Red Dog/Duke/Edgar Earl over in Models.
> Initially I was indignant, too, but I learned to live with it,
> kill-filter it the best I could (REG-EX is a wonderful thing), and to
> carefully pick out the good stuff from posters like Coco
> LaBoy/Soleman, OneTime, Fishnet Fred and others in the former (it
> seems only Harry98 remains, and he posts way too infrequently IMHO),
> and too many to mention in the latter. Ultimately the bad guys,
> DMCA/LEA, and never underestimate the power of RL, all succeeded in
> chasing those prolific posters away. Too bad, but life goes on.
Were you around before 2008?
>
> So why do we post at all? Speculation again (and, frankly, epxerience,
> although I don't post binaries anymore), but for example, the "look at
> me" post over the LFIX material in this group, it's most likely to
> seek attention in the form of "attaboy" replies to the posts. Don't
> misconstrue, I certainly appreciate the posts/reposts as much as
> anyone (and have posted thank-you messages on may occasions), and
> lament the loss of so much of the originally-posted material to
> hardware failures over the years.
>
> To digresss on that point, I'll just say for the record, that backing
> up my potential digital contraband is not a priority in my life. I
> won't claim to be an expert in the disciplines of Configuration
> Management & Version Control, but I'm more than well-versed in them. I
> have automated disk-imaging & backup tasks running daily on my
> network, using win/bash scripts I have written, I have important
> files, emails, source code, music, etc., backed up as far back as the
> early 90's. My very first website still runs on one of my servers! I
> always keep new/refurb/recycled spare drives (mobos &
> cards/components, too) on hand in order to get back on-air quickly, in
> the event of a drive failure. So if I lose my encrypted porn-drive,
> eh, NBD. Any lectures on the topic are as pointless as any
> non-response to repost requests. Besides, is it really better to have
> TWO copies of such things when LEA knocks on (in?) your door & starts
> enumerating charges--possession AND distribution?
Try 5 copies, encrypted with Truecrypt decoy and hidden partitions.
25 character pw in human memory only, retained eidetically - only
copies of the pw are in human wetware.
LEA can jump and spit for all I care. The pw will never be revealed
under any sort of duress.
> Unfortunately there will always be the altruistic do-gooder, who will
> report posts on content over which they disapprove.
Wrong. These are normal people who are appalled at our hobby. You
can't blame them. They have kids themselves. We are nothing less
than perverts but in my case with my personality I don't care. But
I can see their point.
Knowingly or not,
> the goal there is nothing less than progressivist, thought-control
> uniformity, seen daily in the slime oozing out from your TV set.
Most people need to be told what to do unfortunately. They don't
have a clue. That's why aristocracy worked so well for so many eras.
> Unfortunately, a lot of the US service providers, still smarting over
> DMCA (Southern Charms, remember? Oh, and BTW, thanks for the server
> suggestion, refreshing to find that all of that old SC content is
> still available!), pragmatically (if not automated based on key-word
> lists) delete posts regularly. This was likely the case with the
> aquatic primates post--a group which, FWIW, I have followed for
> double-digit years (and snatched your posts within the hour of their
> posting, didn't miss a thing)! I miss Winky's posts over there,
> sardonic, erotic, and occasionally musical (I got some Django
> Reinhardt & Stephane Grappelli from him!) or about his motorcycles. I
> DON'T miss upload_it/Ed Crankshaft, who likely drove Winky from his
> own group with the relentless sporging of boring NN amateur posts. But
> I digress (again)...
Jaysus, how OLD are you? You're drifting off into boring
Alzheimers' territory. Stay. On. Point.
>
> mon ami). Yet, here you are implying conspiracy therories about
> spammers. Are you implying that someone following your posts is
> feeding spammers information on where to post? Someone recently
> implied a similar conspiracy in this group over the "Breadcrumbs"
> post--PLONK. Your posts have been fairly tame, even "artistic" in
> nature, as opposed to the days of posters like Quasimodem (I think I
> read somewhere that he passed away, RIP), girllover and the
> FrankPorn/exgf spammers. Sure, better to be paranoid than careless,
> but after, "Pretty Faces," really? If anything, I find the request for
> your "covert techniques" HIGHLY suspect, and worthy of ignoring, if
> not a big ol' PLONK.
QM came on and offended many people with his HC posts only 3 or 4
years ago. Well after the 2008 event horizon. If he's dead, good
riddance. And the posts you are interested in are anything but
"tame" - here in the states you would get close to life in jail for
a decent quantity of them. I don't call that "tame". If you're
not using unbreakable AES256 for everything you're a fool.
Re: covert techniques, that was me. I didn't say techniques, I
said "system". A system could involve making numerous accounts
with Astraweb using a false paypal account or similar or paying
with a gift debit card. Then, posting from hacked wifi after
spoofing your router MAC. Or posting through VPN and proxy chains
although that would entail significant risk. Many variations on
the theme. The fact I asked is because of his prolific posting
seemingly with impunity and certainly with no little confidence and
I was impressed. Also, if I felt it was foolproof (not 99% but
100%) then I might do the same. Don't know what's HIGHLY suspect,
as you say, about that. But then again, I don't care. Batman has
run off to safety and he will take the treasured position that
3footavian took when he defeated the powers of darkness. The King
is dead. Long live the King.
>
> I thank you for the great run (what, ~4 years using the crimefighters'
> nyms?), I add your name (in my pea-brain only) and Alfred's (if indeed
> you are two distinct posters--rhetorical!) to the memory of some of
> the great posters (and so many more--I even remember the halcyon days
> of the faker's group! Ahhhh, good times...) Usenet has had the benefit
> to host. I wish you all the best, and I hope to benefit from (and
> stumble upon) any reincarnation you may be considering.
Do you really remember the old posters from 2000 -> 2008? PU?
>
> I also look forward to being amused by any troll responses to this
> tome.
Haven't seen a troll here. Still ain't any.
>
> T-T-T-T-Tat's all, folks!
|
|