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