Any Ideas on Turning off the Spammer?

On Aug 13, 4:01 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
I'm seeing a huge number of spam postings in this group. I'm sure they are
from a bot, but since the address keeps switching, I don't know how to block
the messages in OE.

Suggestions?

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:01 am, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:
I'm seeing a huge number of spam postings in this group. I'm sure they are
from a bot, but since the address keeps switching, I don't know how to block
the messages in OE.

Suggestions?

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

-Robert


As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts. If so, that would be classic
trolling. I don't see any other benefit but I'm open to suggestion from
the more psychologically qualified on the group. The actual answer might
very well be above my pay grade :-))

Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

You ask that question right after you post this in the same thread? You got
anything to back that up?



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

It could be an ego issue: He demonstrates his power to disrupt
thousands of users. Or it could be a means of encoding messages
within multiple articles al la spread spectrum technique. Or
something else.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:58:10 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

You ask that question right after you post this in the same thread? You got
anything to back that up?


You may have failed to recognize the fact that Mr. Henriques said he
was able to tell how the sporger(s) got their kicks, while I merely
offered possibilities. There is a difference between the two types of
statements. One implies that there is some evidence that leads Mr.
Henriques to his conclusion. The other is merely my unsubstantiated
opinion reached by examining the facts.

If Mr. Henriques is able to provide some evidence that the sporger(s)
actually read the responses to their attacks, I'd like to see if it
provides any further clues to their identity.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion?


Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:55:47 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in
.com:

I don't understand what the purpose of the spammer is. How does he
profit by this?

It could be an ego issue: He demonstrates his power to disrupt
thousands of users. Or it could be a means of encoding messages
within multiple articles al la spread spectrum technique. Or
something else.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:58:10 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

You ask that question right after you post this in the same thread?
You got anything to back that up?


You may have failed to recognize the fact that Mr. Henriques said he
was able to tell how the sporger(s) got their kicks, while I merely
offered possibilities. There is a difference between the two types of
statements. One implies that there is some evidence that leads Mr.
Henriques to his conclusion. The other is merely my unsubstantiated
opinion reached by examining the facts.

If Mr. Henriques is able to provide some evidence that the sporger(s)
actually read the responses to their attacks, I'd like to see if it
provides any further clues to their identity.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this discussion?


Since he clearly wrote "As far as I can tell" it sounds like opinion to me
and hence calls for no cite. Especially considering there is no way to prove
that someone does or doesn't read the responses and it is just an assumption
made on human nature.

Your theory, on the other hand, makes a great leap that it could be some
secret method of encrypted communication. To state something like that you
need a little more to back it up. But then again if random spewing of crap
in a newsgroup is indeed a method of sending secret note to OBL then maybe
DHS needs to come and talk to you.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:03:52 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

maybe DHS needs to come and talk to you.

Why me? I'm not sporging. Any self-respecting secret service agent
could easily see that, now that it's legal to wiretap US citizens
without a warrant.

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:03:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Your theory, on the other hand, makes a great leap that it could be some
secret method of encrypted communication.

This is no great leap. It's today's version of code via
classified/personal ads.

Personally, though, I think it a little too "obvious". A more likely
USENET vector would be to grab some image in a binary group (or from some
website or wherever), tweak it with the encrypted message but at the least
significant bits so the image quality loss is minimal, and then repost it.

An image posted to a binary group would get no notice, whereas a flood of
postings like this is noticeable.

Secret communication isn't just about hiding the content; it's also about
hiding the fact that a message is even occurring.

- Andrew

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?

You ask that question right after you post this in the same thread? You
got
anything to back that up?


You may have failed to recognize the fact that Mr. Henriques said he
was able to tell how the sporger(s) got their kicks,

He said as far as he could tell, and "most likely." What is your problem?


-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:05:59 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:

As far as I can tell, these people most likely get their kicks by
reading the responses to their efforts.

Are you able to provide any evidence that what you purport actually
occurs?


Be advised that when I post a simple opinion, it's a simple opinion and
nothing else. If I'm quoting a fact, I'll give a source if asked.
I'm obviously not stating fact herea nd I'm not stating something that
requires backing up for you or anyone else for that matter.

Why do you think something someone says as a simple general comment
needs "evidence" that satisfies YOUR personal challenge?
Apparently you missed the preface; "AS far as I can tell". Is there
something about that you don't understand?
Dudley Henriques