Question about Google Groups spammers

[Andy Walker]

Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

>But isn't Google the world's leading search engine? Why,
>or how, would they allow malicious commercial spammers to take advantage
>of them?

They get paid lots of money... IMHO Google=Greed

> 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.

That much is certain.

Well *that* and you're anonymous proxy makes you look really fat.

> 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.

You can always killfile google, which pretty much echoes my sentiments
towards webtv and aol.

> 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.

Hahaha, that's pretty lame of you. Statistics don't lie; 99.9999% of
all spam is attributable to zombies, and the remainder is sold in a
can.

> 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

I highly doubt your judgement in this matter.

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Andy Walker <awalker@nspank.invalid> wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>>But isn't Google the world's leading search engine? Why,
>>or how, would they allow malicious commercial spammers to take advantage
>>of them?
>
>They get paid lots of money... IMHO Google=Greed
>
>> 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.
>
>That much is certain.
>
>Well *that* and you're anonymous proxy makes you look really fat.
>
>> 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.
>
>You can always killfile google, which pretty much echoes my sentiments
>towards webtv and aol.
>
>> 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.
>
>Hahaha, that's pretty lame of you. Statistics don't lie; 99.9999% of
>all spam is attributable to zombies, and the remainder is sold in a
>can.
>
>> 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
>
>I highly doubt your judgement in this matter.

Your spelling of judg-e-ment is so noted.

How about some answers?

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:50:17 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

>>
>>I highly doubt your judgement in this matter.
>
> Your spelling of judg-e-ment is so noted.
>

What's special about Andy spelling judgement correctly?

--
Registered Linux User 413057.
Both Mandriva 2007 and Ubuntu 6.06
You can have it all. My empire of hurt.

[Borked Pseudo Mailed]

>>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
>>

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?

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.


Paranoid

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:50:59 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

>
> 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 *******.

**** me! I've never seen a copy of OE so b0rked. Its post quoting is
totally out of kilter.

--
Registered Linux User 413057.
Both Mandriva 2007 and Ubuntu 6.06
You can have it all. My empire of hurt.

[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.

[Paul B]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:56:22 GMT, Aardvark <Aardvark@youllnever.know>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:50:17 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I highly doubt your judgement in this matter.
>>
>> Your spelling of judg-e-ment is so noted.
>>
>
>What's special about Andy spelling judgement correctly?

This will explain his ignorance.
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/judgement.html

--
Handmade jewelry, Texas :
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/Swarovs...celet-303.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/gemstone/bracelet-406.html
http://www.houstoncrafts.com/houston...elry-june.html

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:22:08 +0100, Paul B wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:56:22 GMT, Aardvark <Aardvark@youllnever.know>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:50:17 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>I highly doubt your judgement in this matter.
>>>
>>> Your spelling of judg-e-ment is so noted.
>>>
>>
>>What's special about Andy spelling judgement correctly?
>
> This will explain his ignorance.
> http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/judgement.html
>

Well that's a horse of a different colour :-)

--
Registered Linux User 413057.
Both Mandriva 2007 and Ubuntu 6.06
You can have it all. My empire of hurt.