In article <alpine.OSX.2.20.2106052028420.57527@mako.ath.cx>,
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, 05 June 2021 12:57 -0000,
in article <s9fsc2$tk6$1@neodome.net>,
Neodome Admin <admin@neodome.net> wrote:
On Saturday, 05 June 2021 12:57 -0000, Neodome Admin wrote:
[...]
As to the David Ritz, I will never believe that this guy have no
idea how to deal with a simple flood coming from a single source,
directed to groups he don't read.
Your assumptions are bad and your clairvoyance quotient sucks, as does >mine. What I read or don't read is quite irrelevant to the problem.
Your recommendation of filtering shifts responsibility dealing with the >issues surrounding network abuse instances originating from >news.neodome.net. Man up and take responsibility for the problems
you and the implementation of your philosophy invite.
I have dealt with NewsAgent floods previously, as well as floods of
cancel messages, supersedes replacing legitimate posts with spam and
the issuance of $alz formatted preemptive cancels, using this Swiss
Army Knife of Usenet Abuse. NewsAgent was specifically designed to
exploit open proxies, as you saw for yourself, in the recent attack on >alt.checkmate and alt.slack. The apparent ability to switch proxies,
for each post, appears to be a fairly recent hack. Thanks for
including the posting-host information, for the second round of this >attack.
Thanks to the speed of news.neodome.net, the attack was somewhat
limited. In years past, I have observed more than 300k NewsAgent
generated porn spam posts, in a single twenty four hour period, via an
open AnalogX proxy running on a Videotron.ca home user's computer. >Personally, I do not miss those bad old days.
[...]
I mean, yeah, it's pretty sad that open Usenet server is used to
bitch to the world about horrors of rival political opinions.
This is the same lame excuse, used by hosting providers, for
infrastructure facilitating cybercrime operations. You and your
server are nothing new nor anything special.
Please consider moving news.neodome.net to an authenticated users only >setup. Intentionally running open servers seems an open invitation to >abuse.
- --
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
"There will be more spam." -- Paul Vixie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCYLxGGAAKCRBSvCmZGhLe >64ATAKDHyYnjh6AmJ/0JP3iv4Y5T+9oeHgCg6YCUKwGgkotZdtS3wiqq12aJt0U=
=8A5X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Open relays must be banned!
There is now a new flood running in alt.atheism, alt.usenet.kooks
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
There is now a new flood running in alt.atheism, alt.usenet.kooks
This should be the last one you'll get to see of this nonsense on E-S.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday, 06 June 2021 17:07 +0200,
in article <m25yyrm3pz.fsf@raybanana.net>,
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> wrote:
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
There is now a new flood running in alt.atheism, alt.usenet.kooks
This should be the last one you'll get to see of this nonsense on E-S.
Thanks for being a good neighbor, Ray.
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
There is now a new flood running in alt.atheism, alt.usenet.kooks
This should be the last one you'll get to see of this nonsense on E-S.
Just don't do it the same way The Doctor did it, Ray. I was looking at
his solution in, I think, news.software.nntp, and if I understand
correctly, it rejects not only articles posted to Neodome, but also
those that just passed Neodome.
Thus spake Neodome Admin <admin@neodome.net>
Just don't do it the same way The Doctor did it, Ray. I was looking at
his solution in, I think, news.software.nntp, and if I understand
correctly, it rejects not only articles posted to Neodome, but also
those that just passed Neodome.
Thank you for your concern, but I'm aware of the pitfalls of Cleanfeed's >bad_path configuration file and I know how to filter based on the
rightmost host name in the Path: header.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana. >http://www.eternal-september.org
Ray Banana <rayban@raybanana.net> writes:
Thus spake snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
There is now a new flood running in alt.atheism, alt.usenet.kooks
This should be the last one you'll get to see of this nonsense on E-S.
Just don't do it the same way The Doctor did it, Ray. I was looking at
his solution in, I think, news.software.nntp, and if I understand
correctly, it rejects not only articles posted to Neodome, but also
those that just passed Neodome.
I wish you had the same public spirited sentiment.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
I wish you had the same public spirited sentiment.
What makes you think I don't, Adam? Countless of times I've seen the
same thing being said over and over: the advantage of Usenet compared to other social media is that it cannot be censored or moderated. This is exactly what I provide to people. Uncensored Usenet, free of charge, in
any amounts you want, - more than you ever wanted, probably, but that's another question.
Neodome Admin <admin@neodome.net> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
I wish you had the same public spirited sentiment.
What makes you think I don't, Adam? Countless of times I've seen the
same thing being said over and over: the advantage of Usenet compared to
other social media is that it cannot be censored or moderated. This is
exactly what I provide to people. Uncensored Usenet, free of charge, in
any amounts you want, - more than you ever wanted, probably, but that's
another question.
Pull the other one! Abuse of the net - in this case flooding - has
nothing to do with censorship, quite the contrary.
If you can't be bothered to - try to - prevent the abuse (of the net)
which originates from your server, then just come out and say so, but
don't spout this kind of nonsense to an audience which sees right
through it.
Neodome Admin <admin@neodome.net> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
I wish you had the same public spirited sentiment.
What makes you think I don't, Adam? Countless of times I've seen the
same thing being said over and over: the advantage of Usenet compared to >>other social media is that it cannot be censored or moderated. This is >>exactly what I provide to people. Uncensored Usenet, free of charge, in
any amounts you want, - more than you ever wanted, probably, but that's >>another question.
Pull the other one! Abuse of the net - in this case flooding - has
nothing to do with censorship, quite the contrary.
If you can't be bothered to - try to - prevent the abuse (of the net)
which originates from your server, then just come out and say so, but
don't spout this kind of nonsense to an audience which sees right
through it.
[...]
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes:
Neodome Admin <admin@neodome.net> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:
I wish you had the same public spirited sentiment.
What makes you think I don't, Adam? Countless of times I've seen the
same thing being said over and over: the advantage of Usenet compared to >> other social media is that it cannot be censored or moderated. This is
exactly what I provide to people. Uncensored Usenet, free of charge, in
any amounts you want, - more than you ever wanted, probably, but that's
another question.
Pull the other one! Abuse of the net - in this case flooding - has nothing to do with censorship, quite the contrary.
Are you sure, Frank? There's a good amount of people who want to post
via anonymous proxies for whatever reason, you might want to ask them
why, because I'm not going to. Paolo, for example, think that preventing "abuse" is more important than letting legit messages in. I think
otherwise. There are similar polarised opinions on death penalty.
From the very beginning I said that it's a moral problem, not a
technical one.
If you can't be bothered to - try to - prevent the abuse (of the net) which originates from your server, then just come out and say so, but
don't spout this kind of nonsense to an audience which sees right
through it.
Stop it, Frank. All you do it trying to make me feel uncofomrtable, accusing me to be not professional. That's not going to bring you any
results. It's not that complicated to sign up for a service such as spamhaus.org, and it's even simpler to just start banning IP
addresses. But it's never going to completely eliminate things you don't
want to see.
Thank you for your concern, but I'm aware of the pitfalls of Cleanfeed's >>bad_path configuration file and I know how to filter based on the
rightmost host name in the Path: header.
Not my solution. Someone gave it to me.
Thus spake doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
Thank you for your concern, but I'm aware of the pitfalls of Cleanfeed's >>>bad_path configuration file and I know how to filter based on the >>>rightmost host name in the Path: header.
Not my solution. Someone gave it to me.
I know by now. However, adding the hostname to the ME: site definition
in the newsfeeds file causes the same collateral damage as Cleanfeed's >bad_path:
/-------------------------------------------------------------------
| If the "ME" entry has an exclusion sub-field, incoming articles are
| rejected completely if any of the names specified in that
| exclusion sub-field appear in their Path: headers.
\___________________________________________________________________
i.e. it rejects all articles that contain the excluded hostname *anywhere*
in the Path: rather than rejecting just the articles that originate from
that host (which is what you really want to do).
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana. >http://www.eternal-september.org
i.e. it rejects all articles that contain the excluded hostname *anywhere*
in the Path: rather than rejecting just the articles that originate from
that host (which is what you really want to do).
What makes you think I don't, Adam? Countless of times I've seen the
same thing being said over and over: the advantage of Usenet compared to other social media is that it cannot be censored or moderated. This is exactly what I provide to people. Uncensored Usenet, free of charge, in
any amounts you want, - more than you ever wanted, probably, but that's another question.
Are you sure, Frank? There's a good amount of people who want to post
via anonymous proxies for whatever reason, you might want to ask them
why, because I'm not going to. Paolo, for example, think that preventing "abuse" is more important than letting legit messages in. I think
otherwise. There are similar polarised opinions on death penalty.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 77:29:44 |
Calls: | 6,489 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,276,381 |