Question about Google Groups spammers

[Rick Merrill]

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
[snip]
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Aardvark <Aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote:
>> I support spam. I am a spammer myself. There is no such thing as spam. Anybody
>> who questions why Google Groups propagates so much spam is an *******.
>
> OK.
>
> How about some straight answers? Why are spammers constantly spamming usenet and
> morphing sock puppets specifically through the Google Groups web to usenet interface,
> and getting away with it? Is it a stupid question?
>

Yes, it is because the usenet supports anonymity all too easily. Many
ISP want to divest themselves of Usenet alltogether - it's a path for
more criminal intent than mere spam, not to mention trolls, and the user
places the blame on the ISP, who cannot in fact do squat to stop it.


> If nothing can be done to stop the spammers who constantly spam through their
> googlegroups.com web to usenet accounts, with impunity, then that is that. But I am
> surprised that so many computer experts here openly support spamming through the
> millions of abusive Google Groups accounts, unless they, you, are among the
> commercial spammers who abuse their Google Groups accounts.
>
> That does not bode well for Google. But what do they care? Google executives
> are making money hand over fist from commercial spammers.
>
> No wonder Google says "do no evil." They don't want anybody encroaching on their
> billion dollar turf.
[click]

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>[snip]
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Aardvark <Aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote:
>>> I support spam. I am a spammer myself. There is no such thing as spam.
>>> Anybody
>>> who questions why Google Groups propagates so much spam is an *******.
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> How about some straight answers? Why are spammers constantly spamming
>> usenet and
>> morphing sock puppets specifically through the Google Groups web to usenet
>> interface,
>> and getting away with it? Is it a stupid question?
>>
>
>Yes, it is because the usenet supports anonymity all too easily. Many
>ISP want to divest themselves of Usenet alltogether - it's a path for
>more criminal intent than mere spam, not to mention trolls, and the user
>places the blame on the ISP, who cannot in fact do squat to stop it.
>
>
So you're saying that, even if they wanted to, Google can do little or nothing
to stop spammers from abusing their Google Groups accounts by posting commercial
spam, and constantly creating new sock puppets to help them promote their
commerical spam, that has been regularly flooding thousands of news groups. Then
what is this address, groups-abuse@google.com, supposed to be for? I guess they
don't consider commerical spamming any kind of abuse, nothing that rises to the
level of getting that commerical spammer's Google Groups account cancelled.

I guess that answers the second question, that either there is no practical
way to stop it, or the desire on the part of Google to stop them is nonexistent,
persuaded, perhaps, by some financial interests in allowing Google Groups account
abusers to continue with their commercial spamming activities, unchecked.

But that doesn't address the first question, which someone else suggested was
accomplished by something called "botnets," noticing that commerical spam
originating from Google Groups account abusers shows IP blocks coming from all
over the free world. How do they do this? Is it an international usenet
"link-exchange" program, or is it being done by sophisticated computer hackers,
what gives?

I find it fascinating that, so far, no one seems to want to address this first
question, perhaps afraid that the all powerful Google overlords might drop their
PR for criticizing them in public?


Paranoid

[Default User]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:30:37 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed
<Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

> I find it fascinating that, so far, no one seems to want to address this first
>question, perhaps afraid that the all powerful Google overlords might drop their
>PR for criticizing them in public?

Both your questions were addressed, you apparently don't want to accept the
answers.

1) Blackhole all google messages.

2) Botnets, or Zombie networks are nothing new and use regular "campaign"
updates from their handlers to send out spam in *all* its forms.

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Default User <default@user1.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:30:37 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed
><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>> I find it fascinating that, so far, no one seems to want to address this
>> first
>>question, perhaps afraid that the all powerful Google overlords might drop
>>their
>>PR for criticizing them in public?
>
>Both your questions were addressed, you apparently don't want to accept the
>answers.

They were? You can, of course, provide a valid message ID where my specific
questions were specifically answered. Post that message ID in the white space
below, so that everybody can look it up and read the article that verifies your
claim:


>
>1) Blackhole all google messages.

What does that mean? If you are suggesting that readers globally "kill file"
all Google Groups messages, that is no practical solution at all. Readers in
Google Groups don't have that capability, for one, and a significant number of
Google Groups posters are legitimate contributors, not commerical spammers, or
even spammers at all. Granted, some of them may be idiots, but every newsgroup
server that allows posting gets its fair share of idiots posting through it.
>
>2) Botnets, or Zombie networks are nothing new and use regular "campaign"
>updates from their handlers to send out spam in *all* its forms.

But how do they post through Google Groups? Can you cite a web site page
that specifically describes how Google Groups posters use "botnets" or "zombie
networks" to successfully post through the Google Groups network? If so,
please post the technical description page's URL in the white space below:


Paranoid

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Rick Merrill <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Aardvark <Aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote:
>> >>> I support spam. I am a spammer myself. There is no such thing as spam.
>> >>> Anybody
>> >>> who questions why Google Groups propagates so much spam is an *******.
>> >>
>> >> OK.
>> >>
>> >> How about some straight answers? Why are spammers constantly spamming
>> >> usenet and
>> >> morphing sock puppets specifically through the Google Groups web to usenet
>> >> interface,
>> >> and getting away with it? Is it a stupid question?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, it is because the usenet supports anonymity all too easily. Many
>> >ISP want to divest themselves of Usenet alltogether - it's a path for
>> >more criminal intent than mere spam, not to mention trolls, and the user
>> >places the blame on the ISP, who cannot in fact do squat to stop it.
>> >
>> >
>> So you're saying that, even if they wanted to, Google can do little or
>> nothing
>> to stop spammers from abusing their Google Groups accounts by posting
>> commercial
>
>Yup. That's about the size of it. It takes a lot longer to identify a
>spammer's account and act on that information than it does to create an
>account. The math works out against Google or any service of this type.
>They ALL get abused, Google is just more visible than the rest by
>virtue of its size.

That "sounds" like a reasonable explanation. True or not, it sure gives
Google a black eye. But when you're that rich, who cares?

>
>> spam, and constantly creating new sock puppets to help them promote their
>> commerical spam, that has been regularly flooding thousands of news groups.
>> Then
>> what is this address, groups-abuse@google.com, supposed to be for? I guess
>> they
>> don't consider commerical spamming any kind of abuse, nothing that rises to
>> the
>> level of getting that commerical spammer's Google Groups account cancelled.
>
>Your "guess" sounds more like a foregone conclusion you'll go to great
>lengths to defend at this point. For whatever reasons you apparently
>have a hardon for Google.

No, but specifically against Google Groups commerical spammers who regularly
abuse their Google Groups accounts, apparently with impunity.

> Some of those reasons may be justified, but
>most are almost certainly not. Fact is you sound an awful lot like
>someone who has had an account at Google terminated for abuse, whining
>about other abusers.

You got me. I am a Google Groups spammer who got his account terminated
for spamming. But why does Google only pick on me, and not the millions of
"other" commericial spammers who keep posting through Google Groups, without
their accounts being terminated? And what's with all the Google Groups sock
puppets that keep crawling out of the woodwork. Bzzzzt! Does not compute.
>
>> I guess that answers the second question, that either there is no
>> practical
>> way to stop it, or the desire on the part of Google to stop them is
>> nonexistent,
>> persuaded, perhaps, by some financial interests in allowing Google Groups
>> account
>> abusers to continue with their commercial spamming activities, unchecked.
>>
>> But that doesn't address the first question, which someone else suggested
>> was
>> accomplished by something called "botnets," noticing that commerical spam
>> originating from Google Groups account abusers shows IP blocks coming from
>> all
>> over the free world. How do they do this? Is it an international usenet
>> "link-exchange" program, or is it being done by sophisticated computer
>> hackers,
>> what gives?
>
>You might want to Google/Wikipedia "botnet". You're lacking some very
>basic information here. Questions are better received when it's
>apparent the interrogator has invested at least a minimal amount of
>effort in finding an answer themselves.

Take you, for example, since you're dodging the question. You need to go
back to troll school. It's the oldest trick in the book, "I could answer the
question, but I won't, because you are an idiot." Thanks for the laugh.
>
>> I find it fascinating that, so far, no one seems to want to address this
>> first
>> question, perhaps afraid that the all powerful Google overlords might drop
>> their
>> PR for criticizing them in public?
>
>Utter nonsense. Your questions have been answered multiple times but
>you keep ignoring those answers so you can go back to barking about how
>Google "doesn't care".

If that is the case, and my specific questions have been specifically
answered, then you, of course, can post the URLs of said replies in this thread
here. Use the whitespace below:
>
>Obviously. Maybe just a little too much so.

Obviously. And nobody cares about their Google PR, either.


Paranoid

[Not God]

Fact: Google Groups spammers cannot be stopped, because Google refuses
to stop them. Everything else is just a worthless excuse. Search
"Occam's razor" if you have a problem understanding that.


In news:7748cb8fde846c89c78e4d7407018c34@pseudo.borke d.net . . . .
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>Google is God. I will not blaspheme the name of God.

[cbgerry]

On Apr 13, 11:27 pm, Borked Pseudo Mailed <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> As most of you already know, there is a serious pandemic problem facing readers
> in news groups. There is a glut of spammers and sock puppets who seem to spam with
> impunity, many through the Google Groups web to usenet interface. I am talking
> about commercial spam, people selling things, people who want your money. I had
> always thought that posting commerical spam links to groups with charters against it
> was considered abuse, and could get the spammer's account cancelled. That no longer
> seems to be the case, at least not with Google.
>
> Complaints to <groups-ab...@google.com> seem to be ignored. You copy the complete
> spam message with headers and send it to them, with "Commercial SPAM link complaint"
> or other obvious wording in the subject title, but no bananas. The spam continues,
> and new Google sock puppets keep popping up like summer dandelions.
>
> A few months ago, I began tracking the IP addresses in the spam and sock puppet
> message headers, of all spam that has been disrupting our groups, noticing that some
> of the messages had been cross posted to other groups, and in very odd combinations.
>
> I began to notice that the Google IP addresses in the spam headers are coming
> from all over the place, from Australia, the US, UK, everywhere that Google Groups
> is accessible.
>
> I don't get it. I can't believe that spammers around the world could be working
> in cahoots, could they? Have spammers created a global usenet link-exchange program,
> where they agree to constantly create new Google sock puppets, each from their own
> injection points that Google identifies by IP block, then keep posting each other's
> spammy links in usenet messages, and maybe to proprietary Google web groups too?
>
> I know there are plenty of other spammy ISPs and what not. But how many other
> Google Groups are there? It's like they are working tag teams. One Google user
> posts a newbie message "I am new here," "I need information." Then the spammer
> responds right on que, usually with their own Google Groups account, or other usenet
> service.
>
> So I guess I have two questions. Is an international spammer's "link-exchange"
> program really going on here? And if it is, then is there any practical way to stop
> them? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't fully understand how the whole Google
> Groups posting thing works. Spam sucks. Whatever happened to the UDP?
>
> Paranoid

=============================>
Well now that you have joined the rest of us from your cavern
expedition, have you ever heard of a malware botnet ? In slang these
are known as 'zombie networks' as well. Google it.

If Usenet were to get hit by this - the "Botnet Cartel" (my term) -
you would know it because the world malware botnet clocked at from 4
to 11 percent of world computers account for up to 70 percent of world
spam.

I would say count your blessings at Usenet - or in other words the
Usenet groups would literally be destroyed by floods of spam from a
malware botnet.

If you are really interested, you would have to start a Google Groups
or Yahoo Groups and as moderators of course bar all spam. Every newbie
that ends up here - everyone would have to keep on posting that they
are going to get no help here because it is "closed" and you join at
the regular Google Groups - crreated.

The similar situation was at Yahoo Groups when the owner and creator
of the group abandoned it. The spam kept coming and we are talking
thousands of members. Yahoo will not allow amyone to "adopt" the group
as the new owner. Yahoo will not moderate the "abandoned groups". So
this is what was done there - to simply start a new group and 'blast'
anyone joining the old with the information directing them to the
"live gtroup".

To drop a name, I am the owner of the PDA Mobile Cafe and helped the
fellows who created the PPC Universe Yahoo Group (Ben C.) who's group
now has honerable mention in the Pocket PC Magazine. This is how it
was done.

webmaster / www.bluecollarpc.net

[-_-]

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>> Borked Pseudo Mailed <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>
>>> As most of you already know, there is a serious pandemic problem facing
>>> readers
>>> in news groups. There is a glut of spammers and sock puppets who seem to spam
>>> with
>>> impunity, many through the Google Groups web to usenet interface. I am
>>> talking
>>> about commercial spam, people selling things, people who want your money. I
>>> had
>>> always thought that posting commerical spam links to groups with charters
>>> against it
>>> was considered abuse, and could get the spammer's account cancelled. That no
>>> longer
>>> seems to be the case, at least not with Google.
>>>
>>> Complaints to <groups-abuse@google.com> seem to be ignored. You copy the
>>> complete
>>> spam message with headers and send it to them, with "Commercial SPAM link
>>> complaint"
>>> or other obvious wording in the subject title, but no bananas. The spam
>>> continues,
>>> and new Google sock puppets keep popping up like summer dandelions.
>>>
>>> A few months ago, I began tracking the IP addresses in the spam and sock
>>> puppet
>>> message headers, of all spam that has been disrupting our groups, noticing
>>> that
>>> some
>>> of the messages had been cross posted to other groups, and in very odd
>>> combinations.
>>>
>>> I began to notice that the Google IP addresses in the spam headers are
>>> coming
>> >from all over the place, from Australia, the US, UK, everywhere that Google
>>> Groups
>>> is accessible.
>>>
>>> I don't get it. I can't believe that spammers around the world could be
>>> working
>>> in cahoots, could they? Have spammers created a global usenet link-exchange
>>> program,
>>> where they agree to constantly create new Google sock puppets, each from their
>>> own
>>> injection points that Google identifies by IP block, then keep posting each
>>> other's
>>> spammy links in usenet messages, and maybe to proprietary Google web groups
>>> too?
>>>
>>> I know there are plenty of other spammy ISPs and what not. But how many
>>> other
>>> Google Groups are there? It's like they are working tag teams. One Google
>>> user
>>> posts a newbie message "I am new here," "I need information." Then the
>>> spammer
>>> responds right on que, usually with their own Google Groups account, or other
>>> usenet
>>> service.
>>>
>>> So I guess I have two questions. Is an international spammer's
>>> "link-exchange"
>>> program really going on here? And if it is, then is there any practical way
>>> to
>>> stop
>>> them? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't fully understand how the whole
>>> Google
>>> Groups posting thing works. Spam sucks. Whatever happened to the UDP?
>>>
>>> Paranoid
>>>
>> You're either a troll or eelbash, who, of course, never heard about
>> botnets.
>
> Actually, you've helped to suggest an answer to one of my two primary
> questions, to some extent, that it may be possible that spammers have
> automated programs that allow them to post and morph through the Google
> Groups interface. But isn't Google the world's leading search engine? Why,
> or how, would they allow malicious commercial spammers to take advantage
> of them?
>
> I'm not the reviled eelbash, but I'm probably ignorant enough about the
> subject matter on Internet spam, to qualify as a "troll" in the watchful eyes
> of Internet experts. I am just sick of the spam. If there is nothing that
> can be done about it, then I suppose that is that. Please say it isn't so.
>
> I've never heard of botnets before, so I searched that term inclusive of
> usenet AND spam AND google AND groups, which returns some interesting results.
>
> I read that the "24hoursupport.helpdesk" and "alt.internet.search-engines"
> groups might be of help on this, so I've added them to this reply.
>
> Paranoid
>
Here is an eWeek story on botnets you may find interesting.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL041707EP38A

-_-

[Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov]

-_- <notvalid@notvalidemail.com> wrote:

>> I've never heard of botnets before, so I searched that term inclusive of
>> usenet AND spam AND google AND groups, which returns some interesting results.

>> I read that the "24hoursupport.helpdesk" and "alt.internet.search-engines"
>> groups might be of help on this, so I've added them to this reply.
>>
>> Paranoid

>Here is an eWeek story on botnets you may find interesting.
>
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895...MNL041707EP38A


Better article - long read
http://www.honeynet.org/papers/bots/


--

http://www.onahorse.com/

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

On 17 Apr 2007, cbgerry <cbgerry@bluecollarpc.net> wrote:
>On Apr 13, 11:27 pm, Borked Pseudo Mailed <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
>Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>> As most of you already know, there is a serious pandemic problem facing
>> readers
>> in news groups. There is a glut of spammers and sock puppets who seem to
>> spam with
>> impunity, many through the Google Groups web to usenet interface. I am
>> talking
>> about commercial spam, people selling things, people who want your money. I
>> had
>> always thought that posting commerical spam links to groups with charters
>> against it
>> was considered abuse, and could get the spammer's account cancelled. That no
>> longer
>> seems to be the case, at least not with Google.
>>
>> Complaints to <groups-ab...@google.com> seem to be ignored. You copy the
>> complete
>> spam message with headers and send it to them, with "Commercial SPAM link
>> complaint"
>> or other obvious wording in the subject title, but no bananas. The spam
>> continues,
>> and new Google sock puppets keep popping up like summer dandelions.
>>
>> A few months ago, I began tracking the IP addresses in the spam and sock
>> puppet
>> message headers, of all spam that has been disrupting our groups, noticing
>> that some
>> of the messages had been cross posted to other groups, and in very odd
>> combinations.
>>
>> I began to notice that the Google IP addresses in the spam headers are
>> coming
>> from all over the place, from Australia, the US, UK, everywhere that Google
>> Groups
>> is accessible.
>>
>> I don't get it. I can't believe that spammers around the world could be
>> working
>> in cahoots, could they? Have spammers created a global usenet link-exchange
>> program,
>> where they agree to constantly create new Google sock puppets, each from
>> their own
>> injection points that Google identifies by IP block, then keep posting each
>> other's
>> spammy links in usenet messages, and maybe to proprietary Google web groups
>> too?
>>
>> I know there are plenty of other spammy ISPs and what not. But how many
>> other
>> Google Groups are there? It's like they are working tag teams. One Google
>> user
>> posts a newbie message "I am new here," "I need information." Then the
>> spammer
>> responds right on que, usually with their own Google Groups account, or other
>> usenet
>> service.
>>
>> So I guess I have two questions. Is an international spammer's
>> "link-exchange"
>> program really going on here? And if it is, then is there any practical way
>> to stop
>> them? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, or don't fully understand how the whole
>> Google
>> Groups posting thing works. Spam sucks. Whatever happened to the UDP?
>>
>> Paranoid
>
>=============================>
>Well now that you have joined the rest of us from your cavern
>expedition, have you ever heard of a malware botnet ? In slang these
>are known as 'zombie networks' as well. Google it.
>
>If Usenet were to get hit by this - the "Botnet Cartel" (my term) -
>you would know it because the world malware botnet clocked at from 4
>to 11 percent of world computers account for up to 70 percent of world
>spam.
>
>I would say count your blessings at Usenet - or in other words the
>Usenet groups would literally be destroyed by floods of spam from a
>malware botnet.
>
>If you are really interested, you would have to start a Google Groups
>or Yahoo Groups and as moderators of course bar all spam. Every newbie
>that ends up here - everyone would have to keep on posting that they
>are going to get no help here because it is "closed" and you join at
>the regular Google Groups - crreated.
>
>The similar situation was at Yahoo Groups when the owner and creator
>of the group abandoned it. The spam kept coming and we are talking
>thousands of members. Yahoo will not allow amyone to "adopt" the group
>as the new owner. Yahoo will not moderate the "abandoned groups". So
>this is what was done there - to simply start a new group and 'blast'
>anyone joining the old with the information directing them to the
>"live gtroup".
>
>To drop a name, I am the owner of the PDA Mobile Cafe and helped the
>fellows who created the PPC Universe Yahoo Group (Ben C.) who's group
>now has honerable mention in the Pocket PC Magazine. This is how it
>was done.
>
>webmaster / www.bluecollarpc.net

Thank you for the very interesting and informative answer. I
suppose that floods and sock puppets can't hardly be stopped, not
completely, but something your reply made me think about, is the
value of McAfee's "Site Advisor" add on. I wonder if such a thing
could eventually be added onto the Google Groups web site, and to
popular newsgroup browsers, in much the same way as it has to
Internet Explorer, and other Internet browsers?

Maybe Yahoo and other web groups could be connected to a central
"Site Advisor" type of interface, to help automatically filter out
messages that contain spammy or suspect links, before the moderator
has to manually weed through remaining messages?

This way, we could all get a head's up on most of the spammy and
suspect links posted in news group messages, or onto other types of
discussion boards. Maybe the same thing could be done for popular
email readers, or is already being done?

The whole idea is to red flag bad web links, in order to warn
readers that it is ill-advised to click on that spammy or suspected
link. Like red is bad, green is good, and gray is suspect. Red
links could be programmed to force redirects to warning pages that
summarize what is bad about those links, like Site Advisor does.

I would guess that the red flag warnings could be given priority
to known spammy isps and networks, like Google Groups, for example.
such that any links to spammy commercial web sites or unknown sites,
that are posted to usenet news groups, would be more closely
scrutinized than more user friendly links, like to well-known
corporate web sites, free sites, personal sites, non-profit sites,
and the like.

Maybe this idea isn't feasible, I don't know. But I like the way
that McAfee Site Advisor red flags bad or suspected sites, that is,
besides the hundreds of spammy and suspected sites that are already
ixnayed in the "hosts" file, and by anti-spy add ons.


Paranoid