Any Ideas on Turning off the Spammer?

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

Andrew Gideon wrote:
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


You devious fellow you!!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:07:45 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

You devious fellow you!!!!

Laugh

I cannot take credit for any of what I wrote. There've been plenty of
articles in periodicals I read discussing this over the years.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:03:52 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
This is no great leap. It's today's version of code via
classified/personal ads.

- Andrew

It a great leap when compared to Mr. Henriques' theory that it was some guy
getting his jollies. To which Larry demanded proof of that theory.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:25:06 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It a great leap when compared to Mr. Henriques' theory that it was some
guy getting his jollies.

Oh. I see what you mean, now.

- 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