Re: OT Warning to new posters: Change your posting name frequently to confuse net-stalkers.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark Roberts, Dec 17, 2008.

  1. Mark Roberts

    Mark Roberts Guest

    J. Tolsten wrote:

    >The only way to evade people like this is to post with a new name and fake
    >mailing address every time you post to these newsgroups.


    Warning to new posters: Changing your posting name does nothing to
    protect you *from* anyone, it is a technique used *by* net-abusers. It
    is called "morphing" and is considered cause for termination by
    reputable Usenet service providers.


    --
    Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
    www.robertstech.com
     
    Mark Roberts, Dec 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Roberts

    Jurgen Guest

    Re: OT Warning to new posters: Change your posting name frequentlyto confuse net-stalkers.

    Mark Roberts wrote:
    > J. Tolsten wrote:
    >
    >> The only way to evade people like this is to post with a new name and fake
    >> mailing address every time you post to these newsgroups.

    >
    > Warning to new posters: Changing your posting name does nothing to
    > protect you *from* anyone, it is a technique used *by* net-abusers. It
    > is called "morphing" and is considered cause for termination by
    > reputable Usenet service providers.
    >
    >


    I think you might find "Morphing" is a little more complicated than
    changing your screen name regularly as AOL suggest you should do to
    protect your privacy and avoid net stalkers.

    I would like the names of the "Reputable Usenet Service Providers"
    please. If indeed such providers exist and are not a figment of your
    imagination.

    Changing your e-mail address to one which is unreachable (forging an
    identity) is morphing, not changing your screen name. Most ISPs and
    Usenet providers require you to have a valid email address that is
    reachable in the event of a complaint.

    You can change your screen name (login identity) with your ISP or news
    provider quite easily. How then can this be grounds for termination?

    There are no more reputable Usenet providers than the University of
    Berlin and they allow unlimited login name (screen name)and email
    changes. The more I think about your statement, the more it looks like
    scaremongering by you.
     
    Jurgen, Dec 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems TrollObfuscator <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:21:40 +1000, Jurgen <> wrote:


    >>Mark Roberts wrote:
    >>> J. Tolsten wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The only way to evade people like this is to post with a new name and fake
    >>>> mailing address every time you post to these newsgroups.
    >>>
    >>> Warning to new posters: Changing your posting name does nothing to
    >>> protect you *from* anyone, it is a technique used *by* net-abusers. It
    >>> is called "morphing" and is considered cause for termination by
    >>> reputable Usenet service providers.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>I think you might find "Morphing" is a little more complicated than
    >>changing your screen name regularly as AOL suggest you should do to
    >>protect your privacy and avoid net stalkers.
    >>
    >>I would like the names of the "Reputable Usenet Service Providers"
    >>please. If indeed such providers exist and are not a figment of your
    >>imagination.
    >>
    >>Changing your e-mail address to one which is unreachable (forging an
    >>identity) is morphing, not changing your screen name. Most ISPs and
    >>Usenet providers require you to have a valid email address that is
    >>reachable in the event of a complaint.
    >>
    >>You can change your screen name (login identity) with your ISP or news
    >>provider quite easily. How then can this be grounds for termination?
    >>
    >>There are no more reputable Usenet providers than the University of
    >>Berlin and they allow unlimited login name (screen name)and email
    >>changes. The more I think about your statement, the more it looks like
    >>scaremongering by you.


    > The more people morphing their names, the more it keeps the net-stalkers and
    > trolls busy trying to sort them all out. Eventually they might go completely
    > insane instead of just their usual insane. This is why they'd rather it doesn't
    > happen and are trying to use scare-tactics to keep people from doing it. Normal
    > people could care less what name anyone is using. It's only the trolls and
    > stalkers that care so they can keep track of who is who in their delusional
    > online-only social life.


    Like dogs they also don't chase people who don't play with them and
    don't run away. That's why I use my real name and make it easy to find
    out my details. Spam filters deal with the noise. So I don't have the
    bother of keeping my contacts up to date with my address. A simple
    life. This whole name changing thing is hysteria.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 18, 2008
    #3
  4. Chris Malcolm <> writes:

    >Like dogs they also don't chase people who don't play with them and
    >don't run away. That's why I use my real name and make it easy to find
    >out my details. Spam filters deal with the noise. So I don't have the
    >bother of keeping my contacts up to date with my address. A simple
    >life. This whole name changing thing is hysteria.


    That's my impression to. I've been posting on Usenet under my real name
    since about 1980, and the email address in my current postings is valid
    and has been the same for about 14 years. I do get several times as
    much spam as real mail, but virtually all of it gets discarded before it
    reaches my mailbox. Occasionally someone *does* try to contact me about
    something I've written, and having a valid email address in postings
    makes that easy.

    And in my experience, people who do contact me about Usenet postings are
    mostly polite. Even the less-polite messages are generally from people
    trying to tell me how strongly they disagree with me technically - they
    don't get personally abusive.

    There was a period, when spam was ramping up in volume and spam filters
    were just starting to be used, that I wished my email address wasn't as
    public as it is. But now spam is only a minor annoyance.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 21, 2008
    #4
  5. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems HEMI-Powered <> wrote:
    > Dave Martindale added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    > ...


    >>>Like dogs they also don't chase people who don't play with them and
    >>>don't run away. That's why I use my real name and make it easy to
    >>>find out my details. Spam filters deal with the noise. So I don't
    >>>have the bother of keeping my contacts up to date with my address. A
    >>>simple life. This whole name changing thing is hysteria.

    >>
    >> That's my impression to. I've been posting on Usenet under my real
    >> name since about 1980, and the email address in my current postings
    >> is valid and has been the same for about 14 years. I do get several
    >> times as much spam as real mail, but virtually all of it gets
    >> discarded before it reaches my mailbox. Occasionally someone *does*
    >> try to contact me about something I've written, and having a valid
    >> email address in postings makes that easy.


    > Yes, but how do you know that your E-mail hasn't been stolen by a true
    > bad guy that is using it OTHER than to send YOU messages?
    >
    >> And in my experience, people who do contact me about Usenet postings
    >> are mostly polite. Even the less-polite messages are generally from
    >> people trying to tell me how strongly they disagree with me
    >> technically - they don't get personally abusive.
    >>
    >> There was a period, when spam was ramping up in volume and spam
    >> filters were just starting to be used, that I wished my email
    >> address wasn't as public as it is. But now spam is only a minor
    >> annoyance.
    >>

    > The real danger is the bots running on Usenet looking for anything that
    > looks like a valid E-mail address. Dangers run the gamut from spam to
    > spyware to identity theft.


    With good modern spam filers spam is no longer the problem it once was
    for individuals. As for spyware via email, if you avoid using any of
    Micros**t's half-baked email extensions and Micros**t software to
    handle your email there's no danger of that. Finally with respect to
    identity theft, a well established and widely used on-line identity is
    the least likely to be stolen.

    As for the famous bots harvesting addresses from newsgroups, if you
    run a separate valid address used only for newsgroups it's easy to
    tell that those bots have ceased to be the terrible danger they're
    reputed to be by computer salesdroids, if indeed they ever were.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 21, 2008
    #5
  6. Re: OT Warning to new posters: Change your posting name frequentlyto confuse net-stalkers.

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:20:18 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    > Martindale) wrote in <gikn72$ljj$>:
    >
    >> Chris Malcolm <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Like dogs they also don't chase people who don't play with them and
    >>> don't run away. That's why I use my real name and make it easy to find
    >>> out my details. Spam filters deal with the noise. So I don't have the
    >>> bother of keeping my contacts up to date with my address. A simple
    >>> life. This whole name changing thing is hysteria.

    >> That's my impression to. I've been posting on Usenet under my real name
    >> since about 1980, and the email address in my current postings is valid
    >> and has been the same for about 14 years. I do get several times as
    >> much spam as real mail, but virtually all of it gets discarded before it
    >> reaches my mailbox. Occasionally someone *does* try to contact me about
    >> something I've written, and having a valid email address in postings
    >> makes that easy.

    >
    > Likewise -- I've been using a real and unique email address for Usenet
    > from the very beginning, and based on periodic analysis of my incoming
    > spam, including that caught by automatic spam filtering, my Usenet email
    > address does not get substantially more spam by percentage than my
    > non-Usenet email addresses. The conventional wisdom about the
    > harvesting of email addresses for spam from Usenet hasn't proved to be a
    > real issue.


    Er, ah, well, Me, Too! I am amused by the perpetuation of a very old
    saw that the bots will get you if you don't break up your real E-mail
    address in six different ways. Besides which, I've had some very nice
    folks contact me with opportunities for receiving a huge amount of cash
    just because I'm trustworthy and have a nice E-mail address.....

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 21, 2008
    #6
  7. Mark Roberts

    Jurgen Guest

    Re: OT Warning to new posters: Change your posting name frequentlyto confuse net-stalkers.

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:20:18 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
    > Martindale) wrote in <gikn72$ljj$>:
    >
    >> Chris Malcolm <> writes:
    >>
    >>> Like dogs they also don't chase people who don't play with them and
    >>> don't run away. That's why I use my real name and make it easy to find
    >>> out my details. Spam filters deal with the noise. So I don't have the
    >>> bother of keeping my contacts up to date with my address. A simple
    >>> life. This whole name changing thing is hysteria.

    >> That's my impression to. I've been posting on Usenet under my real name
    >> since about 1980, and the email address in my current postings is valid
    >> and has been the same for about 14 years. I do get several times as
    >> much spam as real mail, but virtually all of it gets discarded before it
    >> reaches my mailbox. Occasionally someone *does* try to contact me about
    >> something I've written, and having a valid email address in postings
    >> makes that easy.

    >
    > Likewise -- I've been using a real and unique email address for Usenet
    > from the very beginning, and based on periodic analysis of my incoming
    > spam, including that caught by automatic spam filtering, my Usenet email
    > address does not get substantially more spam by percentage than my
    > non-Usenet email addresses. The conventional wisdom about the
    > harvesting of email addresses for spam from Usenet hasn't proved to be a
    > real issue.


    Very clearly, neither of you were victims of the "shootin wars" that
    went on for nearly a year in RPE35mm.
     
    Jurgen, Dec 21, 2008
    #7
  8. Mark Roberts

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Mark Thomas, Dec 21, 2008
    #8
  9. "HEMI-Powered" <> writes:
    >Dave Martindale added these comments in the current discussion du jour
    >...


    >> That's my impression to. I've been posting on Usenet under my real
    >> name since about 1980, and the email address in my current postings
    >> is valid and has been the same for about 14 years. I do get several
    >> times as much spam as real mail, but virtually all of it gets
    >> discarded before it reaches my mailbox. Occasionally someone *does*
    >> try to contact me about something I've written, and having a valid
    >> email address in postings makes that easy.


    >Yes, but how do you know that your E-mail hasn't been stolen by a true
    >bad guy that is using it OTHER than to send YOU messages?


    That certainly happens. I get bounced email purporting to come from me
    that I didn't send. But so what? Faking the From address to appear to
    come from me is only of value when sending the message to someone who
    will treat that message somehow differently because of it - either
    getting the message through a whitelist filter, or getting the recipient
    to open it because they recognize my name. But none of these messages
    looks remotely like anything I would ever send, so even on the off
    chance that it's randomly sent to someone who knows who I am, I don't
    expect them to believe it came from me.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Dec 21, 2008
    #9
  10. Mark Roberts

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:12:10 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

    > Er, ah, well, Me, Too! I am amused by the perpetuation of a very old
    > saw that the bots will get you if you don't break up your real E-mail
    > address in six different ways. Besides which, I've had some very nice
    > folks contact me with opportunities for receiving a huge amount of cash
    > just because I'm trustworthy and have a nice E-mail address.....


    Same here, and several years ago it resulted in a nice
    sightseeing/business/vacation in Nigeria. I did have to sell some
    of my older lenses to be able to get a replacement ticket home, but
    that's neither here nor there and I recall little of it anyway.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 22, 2008
    #10
  11. Mark Roberts

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Re: OT Warning to new posters: Change your posting name frequentlyto confuse net-stalkers.

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:12:10 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
    >
    >> Er, ah, well, Me, Too! I am amused by the perpetuation of a very old
    >> saw that the bots will get you if you don't break up your real E-mail
    >> address in six different ways. Besides which, I've had some very nice
    >> folks contact me with opportunities for receiving a huge amount of cash
    >> just because I'm trustworthy and have a nice E-mail address.....

    >
    > Same here, and several years ago it resulted in a nice
    > sightseeing/business/vacation in Nigeria. I did have to sell some
    > of my older lenses to be able to get a replacement ticket home, but
    > that's neither here nor there and I recall little of it anyway.
    >


    Hey, same here! Did NOT enjoy those ice cold baths they do in Nigeria,
    but I did get to take extra luggage home as I was lighter on the way
    back - about the weight of one kidney, they said...
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 22, 2008
    #11
  12. Re: OT Warning to new posters: Change your posting name frequentlyto confuse net-stalkers.

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > ASAAR wrote:
    >> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:12:10 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Er, ah, well, Me, Too! I am amused by the perpetuation of a very old
    >>> saw that the bots will get you if you don't break up your real E-mail
    >>> address in six different ways. Besides which, I've had some very nice
    >>> folks contact me with opportunities for receiving a huge amount of
    >>> cash just because I'm trustworthy and have a nice E-mail address.....

    >>
    >> Same here, and several years ago it resulted in a nice
    >> sightseeing/business/vacation in Nigeria. I did have to sell some
    >> of my older lenses to be able to get a replacement ticket home, but
    >> that's neither here nor there and I recall little of it anyway.
    >>

    >
    > Hey, same here! Did NOT enjoy those ice cold baths they do in Nigeria,
    > but I did get to take extra luggage home as I was lighter on the way
    > back - about the weight of one kidney, they said...


    Ya coulda had one of dem in Noo Yawk City, I hear. BTW, could I borrow
    $2,500? As soon as I pay the frieght and NIgerian taxes, I'll be sent
    over $20 millions, and so I'd be willing to triple your 'investment'....

    --
    john mcwilliams






    This space intentionally left blank, except for these words.
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 22, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Stanley
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Stanley
    Jun 8, 2004
  2. kpg
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    437
  3. Consultant

    Re: Confuse the course name on CTEC

    Consultant, Jun 8, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    406
    Consultant
    Jun 8, 2004
  4. Doug Jewell
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    271
    Jurgen
    Dec 9, 2008
  5. Ray Fischer
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    326
    Dudley Hanks
    Dec 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page