Riddle me this, part 2

[David H. Lipman]

From: "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net>


> OTH: I can't believe OpalTelecom/TalkTalk. They have a spammer known for
> spamming bigbertha.com and they say it's not spam because the "spammer"
> says its his signature. Too bad that so-called signature is his entire
> post and doesn't even use a signature delimeter. { sigh }
>
Correction:
Not; bigbertha.com, bigberthathing.com

Examples:
Message-ID:
<0c25fe77-6119-43da-9a0c-1fb9e2345bb1@a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID:
<965fa6b0-c84d-4d1a-b923-ac9c4163fa3c@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID:
<efb62534-3968-4b6d-8961-463b7fd2868c@c6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Virus Guy]

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

> Correction:
> Not; big bertha.com, big berthathing.com

The AIOE usenet server has been blocking the big-bertha posts for at
least the past few months. Are you still seeing them on your server?

I'm guessing that most of the small-scale usenet operators that use
noceum or cleanfeed are now blocking Tony Lance and his stupid-ass
big-bertha posts.

(AIOE apparently goes so far as to reject posts made by local users that
contain "big bertha" (I had to put a space between big and bertha for
this post to be accepted).

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Virus Guy" <Virus@Guy.com>

> "David H. Lipman" wrote:
>
>> Correction:
>> Not; big bertha.com, big berthathing.com
>
> The AIOE usenet server has been blocking the big-bertha posts for at
> least the past few months. Are you still seeing them on your server?
>
> I'm guessing that most of the small-scale usenet operators that use
> noceum or cleanfeed are now blocking Tony Lance and his stupid-ass
> big-bertha posts.
>
> (AIOE apparently goes so far as to reject posts made by local users that
> contain "big bertha" (I had to put a space between big and bertha for
> this post to be accepted).

The spammer tried to use AIOE. He was canceled and had to go back to
Google.

I see his spam on multiple NSP accounts.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:32:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:

>From: "Stephen Wolstenholme" <steve@npsl1.com>
>
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:04:32 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many people won't watch either threads.
>>>
>>> Especially when using a deliberately vague Subject header.
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Neural network software applications, help and support.
>>> <snipped rest of spam signature>
>>>
>>> Please don't spam.
>>
>> It's within my signature and my signature conforms with "standards"
>> available when I started on Usenet about 25 years ago. I'm not going
>> to change now!
>>
>> Steve
>>
>Actually I believe the "standards" are for 4 lines or less. However I am
>not one to quibble about two extra lines. I have certainly seen worse and
>VanguardLH is a wee bit overzealous on this subject matter.
>

Despite me saying that I'm not changing my signature, I have removed
the description line so it's now four lines. Now it's just application
names and URL's. I'll risk the lack of description. Can you remember
if there was ever any mention of spaces and line length in the
"standard"?

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Stephen Wolstenholme" <steve@npsl1.com>

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:32:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>> From: "Stephen Wolstenholme" <steve@npsl1.com>
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:04:32 -0600, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many people won't watch either threads.
>>>>
>>>> Especially when using a deliberately vague Subject header.
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Neural network software applications, help and support.
>>>> <snipped rest of spam signature>
>>>>
>>>> Please don't spam.
>>>
>>> It's within my signature and my signature conforms with "standards"
>>> available when I started on Usenet about 25 years ago. I'm not going
>>> to change now!
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> Actually I believe the "standards" are for 4 lines or less. However I am
>> not one to quibble about two extra lines. I have certainly seen worse
>> and
>> VanguardLH is a wee bit overzealous on this subject matter.
>>
> Despite me saying that I'm not changing my signature, I have removed
> the description line so it's now four lines. Now it's just application
> names and URL's. I'll risk the lack of description. Can you remember
> if there was ever any mention of spaces and line length in the
> "standard"?
>

Nope. It's fine.



--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[FromTheRafters]

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:32:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>> From: "Stephen Wolstenholme"<steve@npsl1.com>
>>
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:04:32 -0600, VanguardLH<V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Many people won't watch either threads.
>>>>
>>>> Especially when using a deliberately vague Subject header.
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Neural network software applications, help and support.
>>>> <snipped rest of spam signature>
>>>>
>>>> Please don't spam.
>>>
>>> It's within my signature and my signature conforms with "standards"
>>> available when I started on Usenet about 25 years ago. I'm not going
>>> to change now!
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>> Actually I believe the "standards" are for 4 lines or less. However I am
>> not one to quibble about two extra lines. I have certainly seen worse and
>> VanguardLH is a wee bit overzealous on this subject matter.
>>
>
> Despite me saying that I'm not changing my signature, I have removed
> the description line so it's now four lines. Now it's just application
> names and URL's. I'll risk the lack of description. Can you remember
> if there was ever any mention of spaces and line length in the
> "standard"?

Nope, proper delimiter and no more than four lines - that's it.

RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995


- If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
the more they pay.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>

> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:32:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Stephen Wolstenholme"<steve@npsl1.com>
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:04:32 -0600, VanguardLH<V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people won't watch either threads.
>>>>>
>>>>> Especially when using a deliberately vague Subject header.
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Neural network software applications, help and support.
>>>>> <snipped rest of spam signature>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't spam.
>>>>
>>>> It's within my signature and my signature conforms with "standards"
>>>> available when I started on Usenet about 25 years ago. I'm not going
>>>> to change now!
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>> Actually I believe the "standards" are for 4 lines or less. However I
>>> am
>>> not one to quibble about two extra lines. I have certainly seen worse
>>> and
>>> VanguardLH is a wee bit overzealous on this subject matter.
>>>
>> Despite me saying that I'm not changing my signature, I have removed
>> the description line so it's now four lines. Now it's just application
>> names and URL's. I'll risk the lack of description. Can you remember
>> if there was ever any mention of spaces and line length in the
>> "standard"?
>
> Nope, proper delimiter and no more than four lines - that's it.
>
> RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
>
> - If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
> is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
> connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
> the more they pay.
>

I knew there was a Request for Comment associated with that bit of
netiquette. Could'nt remember which one and was too lazy to look it up ;-)


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[FromTheRafters]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>
>
>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:32:08 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: "Stephen Wolstenholme"<steve@npsl1.com>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:04:32 -0600, VanguardLH<V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many people won't watch either threads.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially when using a deliberately vague Subject header.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Neural network software applications, help and support.
>>>>>> <snipped rest of spam signature>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please don't spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's within my signature and my signature conforms with "standards"
>>>>> available when I started on Usenet about 25 years ago. I'm not going
>>>>> to change now!
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>> Actually I believe the "standards" are for 4 lines or less. However
>>>> I am
>>>> not one to quibble about two extra lines. I have certainly seen
>>>> worse and
>>>> VanguardLH is a wee bit overzealous on this subject matter.
>>>>
>>> Despite me saying that I'm not changing my signature, I have removed
>>> the description line so it's now four lines. Now it's just application
>>> names and URL's. I'll risk the lack of description. Can you remember
>>> if there was ever any mention of spaces and line length in the
>>> "standard"?
>>
>> Nope, proper delimiter and no more than four lines - that's it.
>>
>> RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
>>
>> - If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
>> is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
>> connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
>> the more they pay.
>>
>
> I knew there was a Request for Comment associated with that bit of
> netiquette. Could'nt remember which one and was too lazy to look it up ;-)
>
There is (or was) a line length recommendation too. I think it was 65
characters although most clients seem to wrap at 72.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "FromTheRafters" <erratic@nomail.afraid.org>

>>> Nope, proper delimiter and no more than four lines - that's it.
>>>
>>> RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines October 1995
>>>
>>> - If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb
>>> is no longer than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for
>>> connectivity by the minute, and the longer your message is,
>>> the more they pay.
>>>
>> I knew there was a Request for Comment associated with that bit of
>> netiquette. Could'nt remember which one and was too lazy to look it up
>> ;-)
>>
> There is (or was) a line length recommendation too. I think it was 65
> characters although most clients seem to wrap at 72.

Yeah, I have been told mine are too long.

--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[slate_leeper]

I remember when people on this group used to be polite and helpful.
Now it seems that nits on protocol are much more important to you than
being helpful to others. No wonder participation has dropped so much.
Enjoy your little club. I won't be listening any more.


-dan z-




--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default....ignid=XR014887

The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/...the-greeks.htm