Whoa

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This spamming is unacceptable!

-- disgusted (whoa@time.com), February 20, 2000

Answers

No kidding! It seems to be the price we pay for keeping the forum open for everyone else to lurk, read, and post messages...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), February 20, 2000.


Steve,

What you're missing is that we're running on a system that was almost certainly "best in class" 2-3 years ago, and still has some features that no other vendor has -- but it wasn't designed to be a commercial, industrial-strength service. We don't have to put up with banner ads and other advertising, the way you do on the various commercial forums; and we've enjoyed the generosity of Phil Greenspun, to whom we're grateful for providing the resource.

The changes you've suggested, along with many others that have been suggested, would require some degree of programming effort on Phil's part -- we can't do it from our end. And Phil is busy teaching courses at MIT and doing a bunch of his own things...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), February 20, 2000.


Old Timer,

Thanks ... whether or not I *could* do it, it's not my software. If someone is kind enough to let you ride in their car, you don't get under the hood and start messing with the engine...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), February 20, 2000.


JCC,

Thanks for what I'm sure was meant as a very constructive suggestion. What we don't seem to be able to communicate to some of you folks is that we are GUESTS in Phil Greenspun's "house". We've made all of these suggestions, and many more, to him over the past year or so (the spamming has been going on for a while); and while he has graciously incorporated some changes into his software, he has also reminded us that (a) there are several dozen, if not several hundred, other forums running on his system, (b) none of the other ones are misbehaving the ways ours does, (c) we generate more volume than all the other forums combined, and (d) if we don't like the way his software works, we can go play somewhere else.

We're waiting until Tuesday, when the holiday weekend is over and he's back at MIT, before talking with him to see if there are any quick-and- easy things that he's got the time, patience, and energy to accomplish. We're also discussing various other options, ranging from making the forum password protected, to moving it to a more industrial-strength forum that has more sophisticated mechanisms for keeping the trolls out.

All of the alternatives have their pluses and minuses, and with several hundred (or more) people visiting this forum regularly, we don't want to do anything rash, especially if it causes discomfort for the many reasonable visitors in order to cope with a relatively small number of hecklers. In the meantime -- at least for the next few days -- it appears that the handful of volunteer sysops located in various parts of the country are willing to spend the time and effort to manually delete the spam postings, one by one by one by one by one by one.

As for you, Bemused, I hope your programming skills are slightly better than your spelling skills...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), February 21, 2000.


How hard would it be to add password protection to "Ask a question" and "contribute an answer"? The server is already running an RDBMS, so storing the passwords and comparing them couldn't be a big problem. As to distributing individual passwords, I can't see how that could be terribly difficult either. Am I missing something?

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 20, 2000.


It has been a conscious decision to keep the forum "as is". While I respect sticking to principle, this is ridiculous. The board needs to be password protected.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 20, 2000.

I for one, dont have any problems scrolling down. The intellimouse is great!

Merlot

-- Merlot (Merlot@cost.com), February 20, 2000.


* * * 20000220 Sunday

My Goldtouch (mouse) scroll button works great, too!

Ignore the provocateur, and they'll go away in frustration from lack of attention.

Regards, Bob Mangus * * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), February 20, 2000.


The changes you've suggested, along with many others that have been suggested, would require some degree of programming effort on Phil's part -- we can't do it from our end. And Phil is busy teaching courses at MIT and doing a bunch of his own things...

Well, actually we COULD do it on our end, as the source code is available from Phil. If someone were to make those modifications, I'm sure Phil would be willing to put them into service. I don't have the time to work on it right now, but maybe someone else does?

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 20, 2000.


"No kidding! It seems to be the price we pay for keeping the forum open for everyone else to lurk, read, and post messages..."

Ed, you forgot the part about "unless of course its Y2K Pro who dared to make fun of our group misthink..." After all, Y2K Pro never spammed until he was deleted for his views. A Fact, I have the threads where he was first deleted before his first spam.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), February 20, 2000.



David/FactFinder we will never agree on the timing, and IT DOESN'T MATTER! I watched Pro do it, so did many of us, but it's water under the bridge. Let it flow. Leave this forum if you can't handle the guidelines.

Y2K Pro's continuing actions NOW have earned him a place on the global delete list.... for a "long" time to come. GI?

It posts the same dribble 50 to 70 times per day and is deleted by the Sysop team... day-in, day-out.

Time for both of you to "move on."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 20, 2000.


Ed, Diane, I love the forum. I've learned so much here. I will continue to come no matter what silly people are spamming their heads off. Thanks to all who make this place possible and all those who contribute.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 20, 2000.

Diane, As long as I am allowed to post here, I will post the best I can find as far as "facts" go. I do not spam, I only do as I did before the rollover, try to provide the most factual information I have. I believe I did a good job presenting the facts about y2k, and the rollover has demonstrated that.

When I see claims of an "open forum", I present evidence that it's not "quite" so open.

When I saw you provide a bogus reason ("attack robots") as to why this forum "crashed" in December, I posted the facts - it was caused by forum regulars archving the forum - you posted in the very thread, so you knew the real reason.

I also post the facts regarding Y2K Pro...(hey, he originated the "tin foil hats" quote to the best of my knowledge, I thought that alone made him an original...)

You may try to revise history, but I will post the facts as long as I am allowed.

I make no apologizes for trying to post facts.

You may "ban" me from this forum, fine, that's an easy thing for you to do, since I think you know I would never scroll, spam, or whatever. Before you "ban" me however, I do ask that you allow me to make a reply to Bill Schenker's "An '11.5' Doomer looks at Y2K as of 2-1-2000" post next week since I promised him I would.

Hey, life is serious. Internet Forum's such as this... are not......:)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), February 20, 2000.


David/FactFinder,

We're all looking a different parts of the elephant. At this point... so what?

You can post here all you want BECAUSE you don't spam. Y2K Pro, Doomers@suck and LL DO. GI? They sure don't. (Y2K Lesson's they'll likely NEVER learn).

C'est-ce la vie.

When you "sound" like you condone this massive spamming then don't be surprised if a tired team of Sysops have little patience with you, and suggest you take a "time out."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 20, 2000.


You make one good point Diane. While I do believe that Y2K Pro was unfairly banned and even considered his initial spamming a form of protest, this doesn't make it "ok" to spam. And you are right, my replies have often not made this clear.

I absolutely DON'T condone spamming, by Y2K Pro, or anyone else. I see no point in doing such a thing, nothing good will ever come of it. Protesting the lack of "free speech" by spamming is hypocritical, since you inhibit the very thing you seek....

-- FactFinder (david@bzn.com), February 20, 2000.



Diane- when I go to abuse@aol.com or tosboard@aol.com to complain all I get is a main page...do you have a better URL?

-- trying (hard@to.complain), February 20, 2000.

Diane, Not sure if you saw it, but I made a post that appealed to LL to stop the spamming, which clearly demonstrated that I am tired of this kind of stuff myself. Since she knows that I post at DB and here, I hthought she would at least give my post some small amount of thought. Unfortunately, my post was deleted by the sysops as "bait"....

Lest those in this forum think I am hypocritical about free speech, I suggest you read this post at the old DB:

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/12490.html

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), February 20, 2000.


I suggest you read the DOJ's website on cyber-stalking. It is a well rounded review of laws and protections available. It can be found here

Although I do not condone the actions of LL, I am more disturbed by the reaction of this forums sysops to post her name and phone #. This falls under anti-stalking rules. You have placed her life in jepordy if the name/# is correct. If she lives in CA, you have commited a crime.

As far as abuse@ complaints, you are dealing with the two largest ISP's that have been infiltrated by trojans. Mindspring and AOL are havens for the script kiddies. Complaints to those ISP's will in most cases, get a reply in about 2 weeks explaining that the persons computer had been compromised and 'we have taken steps to inform that person how to get the trojan off of their computer'.

Your case/proof against the perpetrator is far more difficult, than the proof LL has that you have placed her life in danger.

I realize this will appear to be siding with LL, which I certainly do not. Delete if you choose, as you have stated that any support will be deleted. The only thing that I do support, is a persons right to privacy, and the laws that protect it.

[Sysop Note: LL was the one who originally posted her phone number freely on this forum]

-- observator (mailto:@gov.org), February 20, 2000.


FF,

I caught what you wrote to her over at BIFFY and her response, sweet little thing isn't she? :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 20, 2000.


link clean up.

-- clean up crew (crew@thread.com), February 20, 2000.

Casper, Do you 'spose she REALLY powders that white butt she told me to kiss? rofl...

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), February 20, 2000.

TRYING TO:

2nd (and last) REPLY ... EMAIL YOUR COMPLAINTS to abuse@aol.com

Hope this one gets through ... I won't send more. Not spamming.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), February 20, 2000.


FactFinder, your thread was deleted because it was troll/spam bait:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002c5h

You were preaching to the unconvertible.

-- - (Sysops@carpal.tunnel), February 20, 2000.


FF,

I'm sure it is, but could you imagine what being her boy freind would be like?.. gives me the creeps just thinking about it :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 20, 2000.


My suggestion at this point is for you guys to take your forum private. At least for a time....

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), February 20, 2000.

FF...yeah, she probably powders it with Gold Bond Medicated, to get rid of all the zits caused by sitting at her computer for hours on end creating scrolling spams...

Now isn't that a lovely picture? (yeltch..........retch, gag....)

-- WhoMe (WhoMe@nowhere.none), February 20, 2000.


FF: I got one of those big pink invitations also. Was snow blind for at least 10 mins. The thread was deleted shortly thereafter, but the question was inappropriate in the current climate. (Good call sysops, I am embarrassed)

Seriously, I really appreciate the open forum. I just got personal access to the net last week. Because of firewalls at work and other security considerations, I could not have lurked on this forum for the last 13 months if a password was required. There may be others who have limited access to the net who are in the same position.

So I want to give a heart felt thank you to the people who have worked so hard to keep this forum open to everyone. (Even in the face of the abusers of the privilege)

-- JCC (wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 20, 2000.


Ed Yourdon,

Are you still reading this thread? If so... Why don't you help out by modifying the code yourself? For one thing, it looks (15 seconds of observation) that it's mostly interperated code (TCL, maybe some Perl) which means easier access (admins can supply the code vs. the actual coders,) and which also usually means easy/quick modification. Various methods of keeping certain IP address ranges from executing CGI's have been around since the advent of CGI, and have been in the realm of common knowlege for the past few years. Even someone as busy as you should have been able to keep up with the real world in the past few years.... Right?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 20, 2000.


Bemused, if you're as smart as your snide comments might lead people to think, you would know that this forum software is very busy MIT Professor Phil Greenspun's baby and Ed Yourdon has nothing to do with its tweaking. Don't you think there are, at this very moment, e-mail discussions going on as to the best way to deal with this spamming problem? Now unless you have something constructive to say in a polie manner, shut the hell up.

-- - (Old@timer.here), February 20, 2000.

Old Timer,

Sorry for sounding 'snide'. I'm just wondering if I can pinpoint where Ed's skills are at, because my collegues and I have been wondering that ever since we busted a gut over TB2000 in the local B&N last year.

It's starting out as an honest question, and any answer will be met with respect.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 20, 2000.


Is the code written in the cathedral, or the bazaar?

:^)

The spamming is annoying, maybe give it to some open source folks for a bit? Has this subject been broached?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 20, 2000.


Not being able to write code, interperated (sic) or otherwise, (sorry, couldn't resist), is it possible to screen an ISP? As a layman, I am thinking about the junk mail screening available to individuals.

If it is, although some individuals might be temporarily shut out, the profit motive could help the whole web. If ISPs were losing customers because they were not enforcing that long list of terms of service, they might reconsider the $10 or $20 a month they were getting from the trouble makers.

Obviously, not being a codehead, I don't know whether this idea is even feasible. Interesting hypothesis though, isn't it?

-- JCC (wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.


I spell one word wrong and that discounts my post!?! Tough crowd. I guess Mrs. Crabtree was right (write|rite?) all along...

Ed, you seem to spell impressively, must help the bottom line not to have to employ editors. Are fact-checkers in the same union?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 21, 2000.


I spell one word wrong and that discounts my post!?! Tough crowd. I guess Mrs. Crabtree was right (write|rite?) all along...

Ed, you seem to spell impressively, must help the bottom line not to have to employ editors. Are fact-checkers in the same union?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 21, 2000.

If it looks like a Troll, smells like a Troll, and writes like a Troll..... could it be?

Ed..... you fell for the bait...

Casper :-)

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 21, 2000.


Very trollish and baiting on my part, agreed. I think I save it for those who deserve, it, though.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 21, 2000.

If I may, and only because it seriously irks me, some people have horrid spelling skills but are highly skilled in other areas. I don't think anyones abilities should be judged by their spelling, especially when they are making a coherent statement.

-loving mother of a bright dyslexic child

-- someones mutter (mutter@provider.net), February 21, 2000.


Thanks, mom!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 21, 2000.

Bemused: I didn't mean to discount your post. I counldn't resist the jab because I found the supercilius tone of your post offensive. Criticism sometimes attracts same. I messed up by not putting quotation marks around the error I was pointing out. Sorry, I didn' realize I was going to hit a nerve.

Mr. Yourdon: Sorry for the inappropriate suggestion. I thought it might promote the "service" in ISP by incorporating the profit motive. Very, very bad case of tunnel vision when I forgot all the other users on the server. I only use it to follow this forum so I tend to forget the big picture.

Again, sorry for the myopia. Please include me on the list of all the people who are grateful for Mr. Greenspuns hospitality, and never get a chance to say thank you.

-- JCC (wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.


Since your handle is "Bemused and amazed at you people," I cannot fathom any motive for your participation in this forum other than to belittle and insult people and, in general, demonstrate what you perceive as a superior intellect.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 21, 2000.

Mom,

I can understand your position,,,,,,, I can't spell for sour bat shit (as pointed out by someone who should know :-), but I use a spell cheacker, some times :-)

Bemused,

Are you one of those really small people that get their jollys out of tearing down someone that is so much larger than yourself?..... you are pittiful in deed..

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 21, 2000.


Well Bemused, when it comes to baiting, I don't think anyone would doubt you are a master.

-- JCC (wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

JCC: Don't bother apologizing, I often judge people on their spelling skills too. Can't really throw stones there.

Old Git: I think you & I have talked about my handle before. I first used it because I stumbled into a thread where some nitwits were picking on an honest, intelligent poster, and I thought it would be funny and an accurate synopsis of my attitude then. Since that post, I've stuck with it to remain consistant, and so others could search the archives for my posts to gain a perspective on my views. It does tend to inflame, and usually doesn't reflect "me"... maybe I should change it. How about "Bemused and_amazed@ed.yourdon" ?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 21, 2000.


I realize this will appear to be siding with LL, which I certainly do not. Delete if you choose, as you have stated that any support will be deleted. The only thing that I do support, is a persons right to privacy, and the laws that protect it.

[Sysop Note: LL was the one who originally posted her phone number freely on this forum]

-- observator (mailto:@gov.org), February 20, 2000

The sysops are correct. All they did was repost the phone number and add her name and address. If she ends up being stalked, she has only herself to blame. I doubt anyone here would really have a problem with it.

-- (hal@gostek.org), February 21, 2000.


I would like to add that Lady has sent her picture and personal information to many people on the internet. She has also given her phone number out and has solicited people to call her. She claims she's a PI (private investigator), makes you kinda wonder where her heads at doesn't it?

-- EyeSpy (EyeSpy@eyespyyy.xcom), February 21, 2000.

BTW, here's one example:

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/12427.html

Silly goof. Mr Polly knows what I'm really like, you don't. I used to talk to him for hours on the phone, and he's seen my latest pictures. With THAT combination, you couldn't ever have threatened our relationship. We agreed to go our seperate ways without any influence from you. (I think you must have an ego problem besides a doomer problem.)

Follow Ups:

Re: Here's another threat, Netghost... Netghost 20:51:22 01/29/00 (1) I'm beautiful beyond belief.... Ladylogic 21:05:11 01/29/00 (0)

-- EyeSpy (EyeSpy@eyespyy.xcom), February 21, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ