Re: Question about Google Groups spammers

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Borked Pseudo Mailed, Apr 18, 2007.

  1. On 17 Apr 2007, cbgerry <> 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 <> 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
     
    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Apr 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Shel-hed Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:24:38 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed
    <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

    > 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?


    I use WOT with Firefox.
    http://www.mywot.com/en/wot/home/

    It's not perfect, but it helps a bit.
     
    Shel-hed, Apr 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Mara Guest

    On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:40:28 GMT, Shel-hed <> wrote:

    <snip>
    >I use WOT with Firefox.
    >http://www.mywot.com/en/wot/home/
    >
    >It's not perfect, but it helps a bit.


    It wouldn't be a bad idea, if the average user didn't have the intelligence of a
    lobotomized flatworm.

    Present company excepted, of course.

    --
    "No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
    AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
    --glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r
     
    Mara, Apr 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2007-04-18, Shel-hed <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:24:38 -0600 (MDT), Borked Pseudo Mailed
    > <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
    >
    >> 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?

    >
    > I use WOT with Firefox.
    > http://www.mywot.com/en/wot/home/
    >
    > It's not perfect, but it helps a bit.


    Not using Google Groups to read newsgroups, is the best way. Proper
    news-readers can filter unwanted content fairly effectively - and some
    news-servers have their own effective spam-blocking measures too.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Apr 18, 2007
    #4
    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. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Re: Question about Google Groups spammers

    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Apr 15, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,538
  2. Borked Pseudo Mailed

    Re: Question about Google Groups spammers

    Borked Pseudo Mailed, Apr 15, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    978
    Borked Pseudo Mailed
    Apr 15, 2007
  3. Anonymous

    Re: Question about Google Groups spammers

    Anonymous, Apr 15, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    860
    Anonymous
    Apr 15, 2007
  4. Kevin C Baer
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,183
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    775
    sandy58
    Sep 20, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page