high quality computer parts

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:58:04 GMT, in <alt.comp.shareware.nettamer>,

Subject: high quality computer parts
Newsgroups: alt.comp.shareware.nettamer,alt.comp.shareware.programmer
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:58:04 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.84.159.114
X-Trace: news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net 1065859084 67.84.159.114
(Sat, 11 Oct 2003 03:58:04 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 03:58:04 EDT
Organization: Optimum Online
My friend started a website, www.xcsystems.com.
They sell computers and computer parts. I personally think their prices
are pretty good,
please take a look and give opinions so I can let my friend know what
changes to make,
thanks for all your help ahead of time.

1p7?

Complaints to:

***@cv.net, ***@ev1.net, ***@ev1.net
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[s***@MyRealBox.com]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:48:47 -0400 Jay T. Blocksom <not
deliverable+***@appropriate-tech.net> wrote to complain
about a spam post sent to this newsgroup and also to the
newsgroup "alt.comp.shareware.programmer":

<snipped the quoting of the spam>
This is the first instance where I have seen complaints about
spam result in any positive action. Your complaint worked and
it worked fast. When I looked for the original spam post in
both of the spammed newsgroups by using Pine it was nowhere to
be found. This probably means that the spammer was notified of
his violation and instructed by his ISP to delete his spam post.
Also he was probably told that if he were to commit the same
or similar offense again they would terminate his account. Most
ISP's don't listen to complaints about spam, but his apparently
does. I wish there were many more ISP's like his. Also I wish
the civil authorities would take legal action against ISP's which
fail to apply appropriate measures against spammers.

Sam Heywood
--
NTReader v0.32w(O)/Beta (Registered) in conjunction with Net-Tamer.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On 15 Oct 2003 19:46:00 GMT, in <alt.comp.shareware.nettamer>,
***@MyRealBox.com wrote:
[snip]

Post by s***@MyRealBox.com
This is the first instance where I have seen complaints about
spam result in any positive action. Your complaint worked and
it worked fast. When I looked for the original spam post in
both of the spammed newsgroups by using Pine it was nowhere to
be found.

[snip]

I wish it were so; but I'm quite certain that your conclusion does not
follow from your premise.

The reason you couldn't find the article in question is near-certainly
because it was filtered out from the news server you happen to be using (or
one of its upstreams) via CleanFeed or similar, or it had simply aged off
(it was already three days old when I posted my f'up). The original spew
was so widely cross-/multi-posted that it was well past the "cancel on
sight" threhold.

Post by s***@MyRealBox.com
This probably means that the spammer was notified of
his violation and instructed by his ISP to delete his spam post.

[snip]

Sorry, no -- it just doesn't work that way. Usenet is a *distributed*
medium, and the distribution is rather ad-hoc, at that. As such that
article existed on *every* news server which carry the groups it was posted
to (and which did not pre-filter it, as mentioned above). Once an article
is posted, it is essentially impossible for an end-user (even the original
poster) to "delete" it. Yes, the NNTP spec (see RFC977 and RFC1036) does
include a CANCEL command; but due to rampant abuse in the past, it is
"honored more in the breach, than in the observance", so to speak (except
for the cancelbots run by a few well-trusted NNTP operators). You can learn
more about the basic concepts I'm referring to here:

<http://www.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/e-mail-book/usenet-news.html>

Post by s***@MyRealBox.com
Also he was probably told that if he were to commit the same
or similar offense again they would terminate his account. Most
ISP's don't listen to complaints about spam, but his apparently
does. I wish there were many more ISP's like his.

[snip]

You are surely an optimist -- one might say, "cockeyed optimist", at that.
The ISP in question (<cv.net> -- a.k.a. Cablevision Systems
<cablevision.com>, a.k.a. Optimum Online <optonline.net>, among other
personae) would make a fitting poster child for "clueless and rogue
cable-modem ISP". The sheer volume of spam emanating from their network,
while not up to the level of, say, <comcast.net>, has nonetheless long been
disproportionately high vis-a-vis the size of their operation; and they
*very* rarely nuke their pet spammers.

Post by s***@MyRealBox.com
Also I wish
the civil authorities would take legal action against ISP's which
fail to apply appropriate measures against spammers.

[snip]

Nice wish, but what do you base it on? While there is definitely some
precedent for going after the spammers themselves, there is no *legal*
requirement (yet, anyway) for ISPs to terminate their spamming customers.
The pressure on them to do that is coming directly from Internet users as a
whole, especially via the more white-hat ISPs/networks who are willing to
engage in wholesale blocking if/when another network seriously misbehaves
(see: <http://www.appropriate-tech.net/mtap.htm> for an example of what I
mean). And even at that, this doesn't really affect Usenet all that
directly (tho' there have been UDPs -- "Usenet Death Penalties" -- mounted
in the past, it is really quite rare; see
<http://www.stopspam.org/usenet/faqs/udp.html>).
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -