Scan - to file vs blank email and attachment vs Send to

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by - Bobb -, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP issue
    with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner.
    I had a 12 page document to send via email.

    In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In My
    Scans is a 14mb file.

    1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the email.
    I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
    Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
    actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.

    I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook attachment. I
    click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says part 1
    of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
    I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
    1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb file
    in the third email.
    In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
    Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
    I clicked - nothing happened.
    I open 2 and 3 and they are not attachments but just postscript gibberish.

    What is happening ? Is it me ? am I not doing something right ? Should I
    save 3 files in a new directory and THEN click that hyperlink ?
    NO I didn't investigate the link properties, I deleted the 3 emails. No info
    at HP.

    Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb in Outbox
    ??
    I assume the 10mb breakup is Comcast limit but to break apart and send in
    pieces ???
    I've been messing with this for a few hours trying to 'learn' - you may have
    heard me yelling .. yup that was me. I finally faxed the pages to him.

    Anyone been here already and have a pointer to WHAT'S going on ?
     
    - Bobb -, Aug 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. - Bobb -

    Bruce Hagen Guest

    "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
    news:k0oti8$tsh$...
    > Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP
    > issue with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner.
    > I had a 12 page document to send via email.
    >
    > In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In My
    > Scans is a 14mb file.
    >
    > 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the
    > email. I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
    > Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
    > actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.
    >
    > I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook
    > attachment. I click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send
    > it. It says part 1 of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
    > I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
    > 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb
    > file in the third email.
    > In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
    > Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
    > I clicked - nothing happened.
    > I open 2 and 3 and they are not attachments but just postscript
    > gibberish.
    >
    > What is happening ? Is it me ? am I not doing something right ? Should
    > I save 3 files in a new directory and THEN click that hyperlink ?
    > NO I didn't investigate the link properties, I deleted the 3 emails. No
    > info at HP.
    >
    > Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb in
    > Outbox ??
    > I assume the 10mb breakup is Comcast limit but to break apart and send
    > in pieces ???
    > I've been messing with this for a few hours trying to 'learn' - you may
    > have heard me yelling .. yup that was me. I finally faxed the pages to
    > him.
    >
    > Anyone been here already and have a pointer to WHAT'S going on ?
    >




    Comcast has a 20MB limit for sending.
    http://businesshelp.comcast.com/help-and-support/email/size-storage-limits

    Also, attachments increase in size by about a third due to encoding.
    --
    Bruce Hagen
    MS-MVP Oct. 1, 2004 ~ Sept. 30, 2010
    Imperial Beach, CA
     
    Bruce Hagen, Aug 18, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. - Bobb -

    Paul Guest

    - Bobb - wrote:
    > Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP issue
    > with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner.
    > I had a 12 page document to send via email.
    >
    > In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In My
    > Scans is a 14mb file.
    >
    > 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the email.
    > I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!
    > Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
    > actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.
    >
    > I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook attachment. I
    > click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says part 1
    > of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.
    > I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
    > 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb file
    > in the third email.
    > In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
    > Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?
    > I clicked - nothing happened.
    > I open 2 and 3 and they are not attachments but just postscript gibberish.
    >
    > What is happening ? Is it me ? am I not doing something right ? Should I
    > save 3 files in a new directory and THEN click that hyperlink ?
    > NO I didn't investigate the link properties, I deleted the 3 emails. No info
    > at HP.
    >
    > Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb in Outbox
    > ??
    > I assume the 10mb breakup is Comcast limit but to break apart and send in
    > pieces ???
    > I've been messing with this for a few hours trying to 'learn' - you may have
    > heard me yelling .. yup that was me. I finally faxed the pages to him.
    >
    > Anyone been here already and have a pointer to WHAT'S going on ?


    It almost sounds like it's attaching the file twice, in MIME format.
    Or, the MIME encoding expands the byte count by that much.

    BASE64 is one of the encoding options. The nice article here,
    describes how "MAN" is converted to "TWFu" before mailing.
    Encoding methods are used, to jam binary (8 bit) attachments,
    through archaic 7-bit-transparent email transports.
    This method has an expansion factor of 1.33 times.
    That doesn't account for all of your bloat. Check the
    email tool, to see what other encoding options it might
    have. When I used to send attachments from my Macintosh,
    to my PC friends, I used this encoding and it seemed to work.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64

    You can try compressing the file with 7Zip before sending. Install 7ZIP.
    Right click on the PDF file in the folder. Select "Add to archive"
    and pick a file name for the result. In the options, select "Ultra"
    compression. It'll take a bit of time to do the compression,
    but the file could be smaller, and you can email the compressed file.
    The compressed file is binary, just like the PDF is binary, so
    both will end up using an expanding encoder method before
    transmission.

    http://www.7-zip.org/

    If you select "Create SFX archive", that converts the archive into
    an executable, so the recipient doesn't need to install 7ZIP to get
    the PDF back. On the downside, by mailing an .EXE, the alarm bells
    on all the antivirus software goes off, and the attachment can
    then be flagged and dropped, anywhere along the way. By not using
    SFX (self-extracting) option, the file extension stays ".7z" and
    the recipient needs to install 7ZIP to unzip the file and get
    back the PDF.

    Only use the compressed version, if the compression results
    in a significant file size saving. Maybe that will get it
    through the ISP email limit.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Aug 18, 2012
    #3
  4. - Bobb -

    Nil Guest

    On 18 Aug 2012, "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

    > Why file size changes from 14 to 24mb as it breaks up ? Why 47mb
    > in Outbox ??


    I don't quite understand your description of your problem, but about
    this point, you should be aware that when you send a binary file as an
    email attachment, the attachment is encoded by your email program as
    ASCII text for transmission. The receiver's email program will decode
    it back to a binary file. The encoded file is 1/3 - 1/2 again as large
    as the original file (the decoded file on the other end will be the
    same size as the original, of course.) So, it's normal for your email
    message with an attachment to be quite a bit larger than the attachment
    itself.

    If you have a very large file, you'd be better off to put it on a web
    site for the recipient to download, or use a file storage/transfer
    service (Dropbox?) rather than emailing it. Most ISPs have message size
    limits - I seem to recall Comcast's was about 15 MB.
     
    Nil, Aug 18, 2012
    #4
  5. - Bobb -

    VanguardLH Guest

    Note: Bobb shotgunned his message across the following multiple
    UNRELATED newsgroups:

    alt.computer
    alt.online-service.comcast
    microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

    Normally I would trim this list to the related newsgroups but none
    of them are related to his issue except maybe Comcast (but that's
    not the source of his problem). He should've posted to a
    newsgroup that discusses his e-mail client but then it appears he
    is asking about Outlook while he is really using Outlook Express,
    a completely different and separate e-mailing product.

    If Bobb meant to ask about Outlook issues, he should post to:

    microsoft.public.outlook.general

    If he is asking about Outlook *EXPRESS* then he should post to:

    microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general

    "Bobb" wrote:

    > Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP
    > issue with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner. I had a 12 page document to
    > send via email.
    >
    > In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In
    > My Scans is a 14mb file.


    Many e-mail providers still limit the size of incoming e-mail to 10MB.
    Some freebie accounts have a 5MB limit on incoming e-mails.

    > 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the
    > email. I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!


    Not sure why the difference in size between the item shown in the
    unspecified folder in Outlook at 24MB and showing at 47MB in the Outbox
    folder. You only see items in the Outbox folder while they are being
    sent so normally you won't see anything there; however, your e-mail is
    so large that the message transfer takes awhile so you can check on the
    Size column in the Outbox folder.

    All, and I mean *ALL*, e-mail gets sent as plain text. That means all
    binary attachments, like .pdf files, have to get converted into a long
    text string placed within a MIME part within the body of the e-mail.
    Conversion from binary to a text string results in bloating the size of
    the attachment (typically by a third, and sometimes much more, in
    increase of size from the original). Your e-mail client takes the
    binary input source, converts it to text and places that text within a
    MIME part in the body of your e-mail. That's also the bloated size of
    the e-mail item stored on your hard disk will consume. That's also what
    your SMTP (sending) server has to accept to consume for [temporary]
    space on their disks. That's also what bandwidth has to get used to
    send your message to your sending mail server. That's also the
    bandwidth consumed by your sending server to connect to the target
    server to transfer your message. That's also the [temporary] disk space
    consumed on the receiving e-mail server. That's also the bandwidth
    consumed by the recipient to download your huge e-mail to their local
    e-mail client. That's also the disk space consumed on the recipient's
    computer to retrieve your huge message to retain a local copy of it.
    Obviously there are resource consumption along with maximum quotas
    involved when sending such large e-mails.

    > Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
    > actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.


    Comcast nor does any other e-mail provider slice up any e-mails. If the
    message is under their quota restrictions for the sender's account then
    they accept the ENTIRE message and they send the ENTIRE message.
    Whether the recipient's account can accept a message that big or their
    receiving SMTP server accepts it depends on quota limitations over
    there.

    If the e-mail is getting sliced up, it is YOUR e-mail client that does
    that. As I recall, there is no option in Outlook to slice up large
    messages and send them as multiple smaller messages (which the recipient
    would then have to merge back together in the correct order provided all
    parts got received and provided they used an e-mail client capable or
    combining together a sliced-apart message). While Outlook Express has
    an option to slice up large messages, there is no such option in
    Outlook.

    Outlook and Outlook Express are different products. This forum
    discusses Outlook, not Outlook Express. If by "Outlook" you actually
    meant Outlook Express then ask about OE over in its newsgroup at:

    microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general

    A problem you might run into if your e-mail client should slice a large
    message into smaller pieces to send those all to the same recipient is
    hitting the anti-spam filters at the recipient's receiving mail server.
    Often multiple messages (aka multipart e-mails) sent by the same sender
    that targets the same recipient might be detected as spam or, at least,
    as bulk mail and coming at a fast rate (all at once). They may decide
    it is spam and filter it out so it never shows up in the recipient's
    mailbox. Then there are anti-virus programs that will tag or reject
    multipart e-mails as that's an old trick to slice up malware across
    multiple records (e-mail items) to avoid signature detection by AV
    programs.

    > I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook
    > attachment.


    That's the size of the source (original) file, NOT after it got
    converted into a bloated long text string to insert into a MIME part
    inside the body of your message.

    > I click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says
    > part 1 of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.


    It sure sounds like you're asking about Outlook Express which supports
    multipart e-mails. Outlook doesn't have that feature as it is a poor
    and unreliable method to transfer large files. E-mail protocols were
    never designed to be file transfer methods. There is no resume feature
    to re-download a missing part. There is no error handling if a part
    gets corrupted during transmission. Despite your experience with
    e-mail, it is NOT a guaranteed delivery protocol. That means the
    recipient may not receive all parts of your multipart e-mail and that
    means all those other parts wasting their bandwidth and disk space are
    unusable to the recipient.

    > I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
    > 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb file
    > in the third email.
    > In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
    > Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?


    Yep, *if* you were using Outlook *EXPRESS*. You use the Combine
    function in OE to merge these multipart files. Not available in
    Outlook.

    > I clicked - nothing happened. I open 2 and 3 and they are not
    > attachments but just postscript gibberish.


    Looks like their content got corrupted by your anti-virus program on
    your outbound test e-mail, during transmission to your sending server,
    during transmission from the receiving server (the same one, in your
    case), or by the AV program on the inbound e-mail.

    I skipped the rest of your inquiry since it very much appears that you
    are NOT using Outlook but are instead using Outlook EXPRESS. Ask in
    that newsgroup on how to use OE and the various problems when sending
    multipart messages.

    Below is my canned reply regarding users who are improperly using e-mail
    as a file transfer protocol.

    --------------------

    E-mail is NOT a reliable file transfer mechanism. It wasn't intended or
    designed for that. It was designed to send lots of small messages.
    There is no CRC check on the file to ensure integrity. There is no
    resume to re-retrieve the file if the e-mail download fails. There is
    no guarantee the e-mail will arrive uncorrupted. Large e-mails can
    generate timeouts and retries due to the delay when anti-virus programs
    interrogate their content.

    Do not use e-mail to send large files. It is rude to the recipient.
    Not every recipient might want your large file. Not every recipient has
    high-speed broadband Internet access. Many users still use slow dial-up
    access, especially if all they do is e-mail. You waste your e-mail
    provider's disk space and their bandwidth to send a huge e-mail. You
    waste the e-mail provider's disk space and bandwidth at the recipient's
    end. You eat up the disk quota for the recipient's mailbox (which could
    render it unusable so further e-mails get rejected due to a full
    mailbox). You irritate users still on dial-up that have to wait eons
    waiting to download your huge e-mail. Some users have usage quotas
    (i.e., so many bytes/month) and you waste it with a file that they may
    not want. Don't be insensitive to recipients of your e-mails. Take the
    large file out of the e-mail.

    Save the file in online storage and send the recipient a URL link to the
    file. Your e-mail remains small. It is more likely to arrive. It is
    more likely to be seen. The recipient can decide whether or not and
    when to download your large file. Be polite by sending small e-mails.

    Your ISP probably allows many gigabytes of online storage for personal
    web pages. Upload your file there and provide a URL link to it. Other
    methods (of using online storage), all free, are:

    http://www.adrive.com/ (50GB max quota, 2GB max file size)
    http://www.driveway.com/ (500MB max file size)
    http://www.filefactory.com/ (2GB max file size)
    http://www.megashares.com/ (10GB max file size)
    http://www.sendspace.com/ (300MB max file size)
    http://www.transferbigfiles.com/ (1GB max file size)
    http://skydrive.live.com/ (part of Live/Hotmail services)

    This is just a small sample of available and free online file storage
    services. For sharing files, probably better is to using [free] file
    sharing or synchronization services, like:

    http://www.dropbox.com/
    http://www.spideroak.com/

    If the files have sensitive content and when storing them online in a
    public storage area or to guard it against whomever operates the online
    storage service, remember to encrypt it.
     
    VanguardLH, Aug 19, 2012
    #5
  6. - Bobb -

    VanguardLH Guest

    "VanguardLH" wrote:

    > This forum discusses Outlook, not Outlook Express. If by "Outlook"
    > you actually meant Outlook Express then ask about OE over in its
    > newsgroup at:
    >
    > microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general


    Oops, I was thinking of where the OP *should* have posted his problem
    (and that it should be for OE and *not* for Outlook).
     
    VanguardLH, Aug 19, 2012
    #6
  7. - Bobb -

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Robert Baer" wrote:

    > OT subject:
    > How in the (#$$%!@ heck can we STOP these 2 idiots from overloading
    > this NG?


    I'm seeing this thread while visiting the alt.computer newsgroup.

    nym = Bobb
    e-mail = bobb@noemail.123
    Bobb doesn't use a particularly unique e-mail address on which to search
    for his profile via Google Groups. For a search on his profile at GG
    (which is on the e-mail address), there's good chance that not all those
    posts are from this Bobb. But even if you include all posts made by
    someone using that e-mail address ...

    When searching GG on Bobb's [e-mail] profile, he has posted 710 times in
    "this" group (alt.computer group). You never mentioned in WHICH group
    you happen to see this thread. That's over a span of 6 years. 710
    posts over 6 years is a mean of 118 posts/year or just under 10 posts
    per month. You think that's overloading "this" newgroup?

    If you meant me (VanguardLH), my mean has been, so far, in "this"
    alt.computer newsgroup around 1.6 posts per month. Yours has been 5
    posts/month, so you're here more than I am.

    I see about 1 minute later that you decided to repost (as a new thread)
    an exact duplicate of your complaint post submitted under this thread.
    Similarly, you never bothered to identify the "2 idiots" to which you
    were referring. If you're talking about the jumbled mess nym that is
    flooding the alt.computer newsgroup (and probably elsewhere), why aren't
    you filtering out all posts that originate from the kpn.nl spam source?
    I filter out ALL posts that originate from there. I have filters that
    look for kpn.nl as the injection node (plus they don't use a proper
    injection node reference) and any with kpn.nl in the domain (right
    token) part of the MID header. Testing on the injection node in the
    PATH header requires a newsreader that can test on non-overview headers.
    Testing on the MID header is available in most newsreaders. Filtering
    on kpn.nl removes the flood of 200+ puked out by this asshole just
    today. Poof, gone.

    You could complain to KPN about their customer's flooding
    (http://www.kpn.com/corporate/aboutkpn/Company-profile/company-profile/contact.htm).
    Good luck with that. Since they haven't bothered yet, it's not likely
    they care, just like complaining to Google about GG spam and abuse falls
    on not just deaf but missing ears.

    It is likely that legit, non-malicious, and non-troll users of their ISP
    over in Netherlands are local users of that Internet provider so Dutch
    is probably their native language and likely used in their posts. Since
    I don't speak Dutch, filtering out all posts from KPN means I don't miss
    anything from legit posters through KPN. In fact, it's a pity that
    there isn't a filter (built into my newsreader or available as a proxy)
    that I can use to filter out posts using languages that I don't know
    (and I'm not interesting in using translation sites for Usenet posts).

    I know and filter out that one KPN-using idiot. I don't what might be
    the 2nd idiot to which you refer.
     
    VanguardLH, Aug 19, 2012
    #7
  8. - Bobb -

    - Bobb - Guest

    "VanguardLH" <> wrote in message
    news:k0pd4i$5jf$...
    > Note: Bobb shotgunned his message across the following multiple
    > UNRELATED newsgroups:
    >
    > alt.computer
    > alt.online-service.comcast
    > microsoft.public.windowsxp.general


    I did so becauae I did not know which part of the process I was having an
    issue with.
    So next time I'll send to each group individually instead of 3 at once ??
    Anyhow, I read thru your reply and I now understand what's going on. Thank
    you.


    >
    > Normally I would trim this list to the related newsgroups but none
    > of them are related to his issue except maybe Comcast (but that's
    > not the source of his problem). He should've posted to a
    > newsgroup that discusses his e-mail client but then it appears he
    > is asking about Outlook while he is really using Outlook Express,
    > a completely different and separate e-mailing product.
    >
    > If Bobb meant to ask about Outlook issues, he should post to:
    >
    > microsoft.public.outlook.general
    >
    > If he is asking about Outlook *EXPRESS* then he should post to:
    >
    > microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
    >
    > "Bobb" wrote:
    >
    >> Basic question - not sure if HP issue, Comcast issue or Windows XP
    >> issue with HP all-in-one 4500 scanner. I had a 12 page document to
    >> send via email.
    >>
    >> In Windows I select Scan - it scans file into PDF fine at 300dpi. In
    >> My Scans is a 14mb file.

    >
    > Many e-mail providers still limit the size of incoming e-mail to 10MB.
    > Some freebie accounts have a 5MB limit on incoming e-mails.
    >
    >> 1. I send as attachment in Outlook email it shows as 24mb file in the
    >> email. I send it. In Outbox its 47mb !!

    >
    > Not sure why the difference in size between the item shown in the
    > unspecified folder in Outlook at 24MB and showing at 47MB in the Outbox
    > folder. You only see items in the Outbox folder while they are being
    > sent so normally you won't see anything there; however, your e-mail is
    > so large that the message transfer takes awhile so you can check on the
    > Size column in the Outbox folder.
    >
    > All, and I mean *ALL*, e-mail gets sent as plain text. That means all
    > binary attachments, like .pdf files, have to get converted into a long
    > text string placed within a MIME part within the body of the e-mail.
    > Conversion from binary to a text string results in bloating the size of
    > the attachment (typically by a third, and sometimes much more, in
    > increase of size from the original). Your e-mail client takes the
    > binary input source, converts it to text and places that text within a
    > MIME part in the body of your e-mail. That's also the bloated size of
    > the e-mail item stored on your hard disk will consume. That's also what
    > your SMTP (sending) server has to accept to consume for [temporary]
    > space on their disks. That's also what bandwidth has to get used to
    > send your message to your sending mail server. That's also the
    > bandwidth consumed by your sending server to connect to the target
    > server to transfer your message. That's also the [temporary] disk space
    > consumed on the receiving e-mail server. That's also the bandwidth
    > consumed by the recipient to download your huge e-mail to their local
    > e-mail client. That's also the disk space consumed on the recipient's
    > computer to retrieve your huge message to retain a local copy of it.
    > Obviously there are resource consumption along with maximum quotas
    > involved when sending such large e-mails.
    >
    >> Comcast breaking it into pieces but I can't send him a 47mb file ! I
    >> actually expected it to be 3-4mb. Cancel.

    >
    > Comcast nor does any other e-mail provider slice up any e-mails. If the
    > message is under their quota restrictions for the sender's account then
    > they accept the ENTIRE message and they send the ENTIRE message.
    > Whether the recipient's account can accept a message that big or their
    > receiving SMTP server accepts it depends on quota limitations over
    > there.
    >
    > If the e-mail is getting sliced up, it is YOUR e-mail client that does
    > that. As I recall, there is no option in Outlook to slice up large
    > messages and send them as multiple smaller messages (which the recipient
    > would then have to merge back together in the correct order provided all
    > parts got received and provided they used an e-mail client capable or
    > combining together a sliced-apart message). While Outlook Express has
    > an option to slice up large messages, there is no such option in
    > Outlook.
    >
    > Outlook and Outlook Express are different products. This forum
    > discusses Outlook, not Outlook Express. If by "Outlook" you actually
    > meant Outlook Express then ask about OE over in its newsgroup at:
    >
    > microsoft.public.outlookexpress.general
    >
    > A problem you might run into if your e-mail client should slice a large
    > message into smaller pieces to send those all to the same recipient is
    > hitting the anti-spam filters at the recipient's receiving mail server.
    > Often multiple messages (aka multipart e-mails) sent by the same sender
    > that targets the same recipient might be detected as spam or, at least,
    > as bulk mail and coming at a fast rate (all at once). They may decide
    > it is spam and filter it out so it never shows up in the recipient's
    > mailbox. Then there are anti-virus programs that will tag or reject
    > multipart e-mails as that's an old trick to slice up malware across
    > multiple records (e-mail items) to avoid signature detection by AV
    > programs.
    >
    >> I right-click the file - send and it shows as 14mb in Outlook
    >> attachment.

    >
    > That's the size of the source (original) file, NOT after it got
    > converted into a bloated long text string to insert into a MIME part
    > inside the body of your message.
    >
    >> I click SEND and outbox shows 24mb, but it starts to send it. It says
    >> part 1 of 3 , art 2 of 3 and then part 3 of 3.

    >
    > It sure sounds like you're asking about Outlook Express which supports
    > multipart e-mails. Outlook doesn't have that feature as it is a poor
    > and unreliable method to transfer large files. E-mail protocols were
    > never designed to be file transfer methods. There is no resume feature
    > to re-download a missing part. There is no error handling if a part
    > gets corrupted during transmission. Despite your experience with
    > e-mail, it is NOT a guaranteed delivery protocol. That means the
    > recipient may not receive all parts of your multipart e-mail and that
    > means all those other parts wasting their bandwidth and disk space are
    > unusable to the recipient.
    >
    >> I cc'ed myself and see, when it arrives:
    >> 1 10mb file attachment, another 10mb file in a second email and a 188kb
    >> file
    >> in the third email.
    >> In the first email there is a link - shows as 7mb. ???
    >> Is that supposed to reassemble these files ?

    >
    > Yep, *if* you were using Outlook *EXPRESS*. You use the Combine
    > function in OE to merge these multipart files. Not available in
    > Outlook.
    >
    >> I clicked - nothing happened. I open 2 and 3 and they are not
    >> attachments but just postscript gibberish.

    >
    > Looks like their content got corrupted by your anti-virus program on
    > your outbound test e-mail, during transmission to your sending server,
    > during transmission from the receiving server (the same one, in your
    > case), or by the AV program on the inbound e-mail.
    >
    > I skipped the rest of your inquiry since it very much appears that you
    > are NOT using Outlook but are instead using Outlook EXPRESS. Ask in
    > that newsgroup on how to use OE and the various problems when sending
    > multipart messages.
    >
    > Below is my canned reply regarding users who are improperly using e-mail
    > as a file transfer protocol.
    >
    > --------------------
    >
    > E-mail is NOT a reliable file transfer mechanism. It wasn't intended or
    > designed for that. It was designed to send lots of small messages.
    > There is no CRC check on the file to ensure integrity. There is no
    > resume to re-retrieve the file if the e-mail download fails. There is
    > no guarantee the e-mail will arrive uncorrupted. Large e-mails can
    > generate timeouts and retries due to the delay when anti-virus programs
    > interrogate their content.
    >
    > Do not use e-mail to send large files. It is rude to the recipient.
    > Not every recipient might want your large file. Not every recipient has
    > high-speed broadband Internet access. Many users still use slow dial-up
    > access, especially if all they do is e-mail. You waste your e-mail
    > provider's disk space and their bandwidth to send a huge e-mail. You
    > waste the e-mail provider's disk space and bandwidth at the recipient's
    > end. You eat up the disk quota for the recipient's mailbox (which could
    > render it unusable so further e-mails get rejected due to a full
    > mailbox). You irritate users still on dial-up that have to wait eons
    > waiting to download your huge e-mail. Some users have usage quotas
    > (i.e., so many bytes/month) and you waste it with a file that they may
    > not want. Don't be insensitive to recipients of your e-mails. Take the
    > large file out of the e-mail.
    >
    > Save the file in online storage and send the recipient a URL link to the
    > file. Your e-mail remains small. It is more likely to arrive. It is
    > more likely to be seen. The recipient can decide whether or not and
    > when to download your large file. Be polite by sending small e-mails.
    >
    > Your ISP probably allows many gigabytes of online storage for personal
    > web pages. Upload your file there and provide a URL link to it. Other
    > methods (of using online storage), all free, are:
    >
    > http://www.adrive.com/ (50GB max quota, 2GB max file size)
    > http://www.driveway.com/ (500MB max file size)
    > http://www.filefactory.com/ (2GB max file size)
    > http://www.megashares.com/ (10GB max file size)
    > http://www.sendspace.com/ (300MB max file size)
    > http://www.transferbigfiles.com/ (1GB max file size)
    > http://skydrive.live.com/ (part of Live/Hotmail services)
    >
    > This is just a small sample of available and free online file storage
    > services. For sharing files, probably better is to using [free] file
    > sharing or synchronization services, like:
    >
    > http://www.dropbox.com/
    > http://www.spideroak.com/
    >
    > If the files have sensitive content and when storing them online in a
    > public storage area or to guard it against whomever operates the online
    > storage service, remember to encrypt it.
     
    - Bobb -, Aug 20, 2012
    #8
  9. - Bobb -

    Paul Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:

    > More info; THREE junk postings since my previous posting; so much for
    > your "1.6 posts per month" - this is a DAILY thing.
    > RECENT POSTINGS
    > **
    > Received: by 10.180.75.8 with SMTP id y8mr2000232wiv.4.1345483722243;
    > Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
    > MIME-Version: 1.0
    > Path:
    > border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!yt1no33184098wib.1!news-out.google.com!q11ni228877310wiw.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.138.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!feed.xsnews.nl!ramfeed-1.ams.xsnews.nl!post-feeder-02.xsnews.nl!frontend-F10-12.ams.news.kpn.nl
    >
    > From:
    > Subject: Slow software (^_^)
    > Newsgroups: alt.computer
    > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC)
    > Lines: 1
    > Message-ID: <50327335$0$32682$>
    > Organization: KPN.com
    > NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19
    > X-Trace: 1345483573 news.kpn.nl 32682 213.75.39.19@kpn/213.75.39.19:56150
    > Bytes: 830
    > Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.computer:316808
    >
    > Slow software (^_^)
    > **


    I loaded up Seamonkey in Ubuntu, pointed it at aoie.org for a test.
    In alt.computer, AIOE has the kpn.nl junk on Aug.10/2012, but not later.

    I used Windows:Mail and Newsgroups, to set up a new USENET account.
    Gave it aioe.org as a server to use. Subscribed to alt.computer.

    Then:

    Click on alt.computer.

    Select Tools:Message filters

    The filter is limited to "Subject", "From", "Date", "Size", with the
    latter two being completely useless. There's no option to search
    on more useful fields, such as MID or portion-of-mid.

    In this case, since all the spam has a from of "kpnmail.nl",
    I selected the "From" option and used that as a value.

    I set the action method to "Delete Message", but it doesn't
    really delete anything. Just removes the header from the list.
    The filter was really designed for email, and USENET news was
    an afterthought.

    Clicked OK when I was done. You can see my filter here.

    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9230/seamonkeyfilter.gif

    Next, go back to the menu of the mail/news window and
    select Tools:Run Filters On Folders. You should notice
    the crap in alt.computer disappear from the header list.

    While I set the filter to "Checking Mail or Manually Run",
    I can't be sure the filter will remove new spam headers,
    without doing a manual run.

    You really need a newsreader with better filter rules.

    Or, use an NSP server with more attentive administration.
    Both AIOE and Eternal-September, remove those (flood) posts.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Aug 20, 2012
    #9
  10. - Bobb -

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Robert Baer" wrote:

    > I have been seeing around 100 posts at alt.computer on a DAILY basis
    > from what appears to be two idiots exactly describes as you did ("the
    > jumbled mess nym" in both cases).
    >
    > These posts are in English and the body is an exact copy of the
    > subject, and are something like (faking now) "Good times ^_^".
    >
    > I have heard this nasty (to me) rumor that a filter can be used.
    > First,where is it (SeaMonkey)?
    > Second, how do i use it assuming it exists (have yet to find it)?
    > (by sender?, by something else?)
    > Third,since i saw nothing in the posts referring to KPN,how would it
    > do that "discovery"?
    >
    > Thank you very much for your patience in addressing my abysmal
    > ignorance concerning "filters".


    I don't use and never have use Seamonkey. Ask in the Mozilla newsgroups
    for Seamonkey on how to define filters within that product. Mozilla
    operates their own NNTP server (nntp.mozilla.org) to which you would
    have to connect to get at the Seamonkey newsgroups. Ask them if
    Seamonkey can test on non-overview headers.

    Somewhere in Seamonkey should be a function that lets you see the
    headers for an e-mail or newsgroup message. After finding out how to do
    that, you would see the asshole flooder's posts have kpn.nl as the
    injection node in the PATH header. Servers prepend their node in the
    PATH so the first node is on the right end of the PATH header, the next
    server is prepended, and so on until the last server prepends itself
    into the PATH header (so it's at the left or start of the PATH header).
    When you see the headers, you'll also see this malcontent's MID (message
    ID) header also has the kpn.nl domain in the right-id token (after the
    "@" character). While some newsreaders let you test on the non-overview
    PATH header, most will let you test on the MID overview header. The
    problem with testing only on the MID header is that NNTP servers will
    not overwrite it with their own value if the client already added this
    header. That is, if missing the NNTP server will add its own MID header
    but if present then the NNTP server leaves it there. That means the
    sender can configure their client to use whatever MID header value they
    want, and why I include a test on the PATH header that the sender can't
    modify (the NNTP server adds that). If a sender doesn't include their
    own MID header, the server adds it and my filter is valid. If the
    sender wants to pretend their sending from kpn.nl in their MID header by
    having their client enter its own MID header then I my filter is still
    valid for eliminating the domain forger (just like I filter out trolls
    along with anyone impostering the troll).

    In my newsreader, overview headers get tested first. So if kpn.nl is in
    the MID header then that post gets flagged. A post flagged in the first
    pass doesn't need to get retested in the second pass. My newsreader
    will then perform a second pass on the non-flagged posts to exercise any
    filters that test on non-overview headers and flags those that match in
    the second pass. So the MID overview header gets tested first and has
    kpn.nl then the post gets flagged in the first pass. If the MID header
    doesn't have kpn.nl, the second pass will catch that idiot's post in its
    second pass on testing the PATH non-overview header and finding kpn.nl
    is the injection node (i.e., where the idiot's post originated).

    My newsreader does not support the XPAT command that lets it request the
    value of a specific header in the specified article. That's an
    expensive operation which most NNTP servers don't support. So I have to
    configure my newsreader to download the complete article which means it
    gets all headers. Instead of just getting the overview headers, it gets
    both the overview and non-overview headers. That also means having to
    download the bodies of the articles. I don't do binary newsgroups so I
    don't end up downloading a bunch of files (encoding within the articles
    as attachments) that I don't want and which would take a lot longer to
    retrieve. I only do text-only newsgroups and their articles download
    pretty quickly.

    You'll have to ask in a Seamonkey newsgroup on what filters you can
    define within that product, on what header types it can test (just
    overview headers or both overview and non-overview headers), if it
    supports XPAT (but few NNTP servers do which means XPAT support in your
    client will have limited or no value) or if you have to configure
    Seamonkey to download the complete article (so all headers become
    available for testing provided the client lets you define filters on ANY
    header). Supporting regex so you can accurately define on what to test
    and where in a string to test within a header is almost a requirement to
    ensure you don't filter out articles you didn't mean to match on (i.e.,
    to reduce collateral damage).
     
    VanguardLH, Aug 20, 2012
    #10
  11. - Bobb -

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Robert Baer" wrote:

    > More info; THREE junk postings since my previous posting; so much for
    > your "1.6 posts per month" - this is a DAILY thing.


    Not relevant to my history of postings here or Bobb's, either, which
    were the implied candidates in your complaint post that was a reply to
    my post. Reread my stat post to see about WHO was mentioned regarding
    those average monthly posting rates.

    <snipped the following to show just the relevant headers and content>
    >
    > Path: ...!frontend-F10-12.ams.news.kpn.nl
    > From:
    > Message-ID: <50327335$0$32682$>
    > Organization: KPN.com
    > X-Trace: 1345483573 news.kpn.nl 32682 213.75.39.19@kpn/213.75.39.19:56150


    There are 5 headers right there where you find the kpn.nl domain
    specified. The injection node in the non-overview PATH header tells you
    this asshole's posts originated from kpn.nl. The idiot is not adding
    their own MID header but the NNTP server is adding its own so the
    overview MID header is available for testing in just about every
    newsreader. The non-overview Organization header is of little use
    since, as with the MID header, the sender's client can insert its own
    value for that header and the NNTP server won't overwrite it, plus the
    MID and PATH headers are more effective for identifying from where a
    post originates. The non-overview X-Trace header is added by the server
    so it can be used to filter out this asshole's flood.

    <snipped the other examples of flood posts from the asshole poster>

    If your newsreader (Seamonkey) supports regex, some examples of usable
    filters to flag this asshole's flood are:

    From {@kpnmail\.(net|nl)}
    Message-ID {news\.kpn\.(net|nl)>}
    Header {(?-s)^Path: .+\.news\.kpn\.(net|nl)(!not-for-mail)?$}

    Although I added the From filter above, I don't use it. The MID
    overview and PATH non-overview filters are sufficient. I don't know
    what features are available in your newsreader (Seamonkey). Mine lets
    me test on both overview headers (in its first pass) and non-overview
    headers (in its 2nd pass - if the entire article is retrieved which only
    makes sense for text-only newsgroups and not in binary groups). My
    newsreader also supports regex so I can specify just exactly where
    within a string to find a target on which to fire a filter.
     
    VanguardLH, Aug 20, 2012
    #11
  12. - Bobb -

    Ken Whiton Guest

    *-* On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, at 11:26:19 -0700,
    *-* In Article <>,
    *-* Robert Baer wrote
    *-* About Re: Scan - to file vs blank email and attachment vs Send to

    > X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com


    > X-Complaints-To:


    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >> "Robert Baer" wrote:


    >>> OT subject:
    >>> How in the (#$$%!@ heck can we STOP these 2 idiots from
    >>> overloading this NG?


    >> I'm seeing this thread while visiting the alt.computer newsgroup.


    [ ... ]

    >> I see about 1 minute later that you decided to repost (as a new
    >> thread) an exact duplicate of your complaint post submitted under
    >> this thread. Similarly, you never bothered to identify the "2
    >> idiots" to which you were referring. If you're talking about the
    >> jumbled mess nym that is flooding the alt.computer newsgroup (and
    >> probably elsewhere),


    "Probably elsewhere" is correct. I recently read about the same
    thing happening in the alt.humor.puns newsgroup.

    [ ... ]

    >> I know and filter out that one KPN-using idiot. I don't what might
    >> be the 2nd idiot to which you refer.


    > RECENT POSTINGS


    [Quoting selected headers, relevant to my comments in this post]

    > From:


    > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC)


    > NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19



    > From:


    > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:33:42 +0000 (UTC)


    > NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19



    > From:


    > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:38:43 +0000 (UTC)


    > NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19


    > *** END COPY


    VanguardLH is correct that it's one poster. Note that regardless
    of which name appears in the "From:" header, all the posts in question
    originate from the same IP address (NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19).
    Here is some selected information extracted from a "whois" look-up on
    that address.

    Host static.kpn.net
    Location NL, Netherlands

    Organization HN-Plus
    ISP Koninklijke KPN N.V.

    remarks: Static IP KPN customers
    remarks: Please mail abuse issues to:
    remarks: Please mail security issues to:

    You might try e-mailing copies of several of the posts (including
    all headers) to KPN's abuse-reporting address. I'd suggest using the
    subject "Newsgroup Abuse". With luck KPN will cancel the poster's
    account, or otherwise put an end to the flood.

    Note, too, the posts are time-stamped five minutes apart, as if
    the postings are automated.

    In response to your comment in a later post:

    > Will send complaint to my ISP (same as NSP).


    from the headers of your post (the "X-" headers I quoted above) it
    appears that your ISP, LocalNet, doesn't operate their own news
    server, but rather outsources news to Giganews.

    Ken Whiton
    --
    FIDO: 1:132/152
    InterNet: (remove the obvious to reply)
     
    Ken Whiton, Aug 21, 2012
    #12
  13. - Bobb -

    Guest

    Robert Baer wrote:

    <Snip>
    > I have been seeing around 100 posts at alt.computer on a DAILY basis
    > from what appears to be two idiots exactly describes as you did ("the
    > jumbled mess nym" in both cases).
    >
    > These posts are in English and the body is an exact copy of the
    > subject, and are something like (faking now) "Good times ^_^".
    >
    > I have heard this nasty (to me) rumor that a filter can be used.
    > First,where is it (SeaMonkey)?
    > Second, how do i use it assuming it exists (have yet to find it)?
    > (by sender?, by something else?)
    > Third,since i saw nothing in the posts referring to KPN,how would it
    > do that "discovery"?
    >
    > Thank you very much for your patience in addressing my abysmal
    > ignorance concerning "filters".


    Robert, I'm using SeaMonkey 2.11 and just the other day I made myself a
    filter to get rid of these annoying posts.

    1, In SeaMonkey, go to Tools->Message Filters
    2. Select the News server/group that you want the filter to apply to (I
    normally do it server wide)
    3. Give it a name (I usually call it after what I'm filtering on)
    4. In this case, under the drop-down for "Subject", select "From"
    5. You would have noted that the posts are coming from more than one
    address, but the server side is the same, so Copy/Paste the server name
    into the empty field to the right of "contains"
    6. Select what you want to happen to the message.
    7. Click "OK".

    It will not apply to the headers that you've listed today/tonight, but
    for future listings, the filter will apply.

    HTH

    (If you need further assistance with SeaMonkey, set yourself up a news
    sever for news.mozilla.org and subscribe to the group
    mozilla.support.seamonkey and ask away!!)

    (Also you are using SeaMonkey version 2.7.1 ... a bit old, we are now at
    version 2.11)

    Daniel
     
    , Aug 21, 2012
    #13
  14. - Bobb -

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Robert Baer" wrote:

    > Ken Whiton wrote:
    >> *-* On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, at 11:26:19 -0700,
    >> *-* In Article<>,
    >> *-* Robert Baer wrote
    >> *-* About Re: Scan - to file vs blank email and attachment vs Send to
    >>
    >>> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com

    >>
    >>> X-Complaints-To:

    >>
    >>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>> "Robert Baer" wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> OT subject:
    >>>>> How in the (#$$%!@ heck can we STOP these 2 idiots from
    >>>>> overloading this NG?

    >>
    >>>> I'm seeing this thread while visiting the alt.computer newsgroup.

    >>
    >> [ ... ]
    >>
    >>>> I see about 1 minute later that you decided to repost (as a new
    >>>> thread) an exact duplicate of your complaint post submitted under
    >>>> this thread. Similarly, you never bothered to identify the "2
    >>>> idiots" to which you were referring. If you're talking about the
    >>>> jumbled mess nym that is flooding the alt.computer newsgroup (and
    >>>> probably elsewhere),

    >>
    >> "Probably elsewhere" is correct. I recently read about the same
    >> thing happening in the alt.humor.puns newsgroup.
    >>
    >> [ ... ]
    >>
    >>>> I know and filter out that one KPN-using idiot. I don't what might
    >>>> be the 2nd idiot to which you refer.

    >>
    >>> RECENT POSTINGS

    >>
    >> [Quoting selected headers, relevant to my comments in this post]
    >>
    >>> From:

    >>
    >>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC)

    >>
    >>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19

    >>
    >>
    >>> From:

    >>
    >>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:33:42 +0000 (UTC)

    >>
    >>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19

    >>
    >>
    >>> From:

    >>
    >>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:38:43 +0000 (UTC)

    >>
    >>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19

    >>
    >>> *** END COPY

    >>
    >> VanguardLH is correct that it's one poster. Note that regardless
    >> of which name appears in the "From:" header, all the posts in question
    >> originate from the same IP address (NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19).
    >> Here is some selected information extracted from a "whois" look-up on
    >> that address.
    >>
    >> Host static.kpn.net
    >> Location NL, Netherlands
    >>
    >> Organization HN-Plus
    >> ISP Koninklijke KPN N.V.
    >>
    >> remarks: Static IP KPN customers
    >> remarks: Please mail abuse issues to:
    >> remarks: Please mail security issues to:
    >>
    >> You might try e-mailing copies of several of the posts (including
    >> all headers) to KPN's abuse-reporting address. I'd suggest using the
    >> subject "Newsgroup Abuse". With luck KPN will cancel the poster's
    >> account, or otherwise put an end to the flood.
    >>
    >> Note, too, the posts are time-stamped five minutes apart, as if
    >> the postings are automated.
    >>
    >> In response to your comment in a later post:
    >>
    >>> Will send complaint to my ISP (same as NSP).

    >>
    >> from the headers of your post (the "X-" headers I quoted above) it
    >> appears that your ISP, LocalNet, doesn't operate their own news
    >> server, but rather outsources news to Giganews.
    >>
    >> Ken Whiton

    > Am not an expert in these things, will take your word for that.
    > The complaint has been forwarded to my ISP, and they have been fairly
    > good in regard to "ordinary" spam.


    Your ISP can do nothing about a troll flood in Usenet. They aren't
    operating the NNTP server. Even if they were contracting with Giganews
    to provide Usenet services, Giganews won't do much, either. They are
    *peering* the asshole's articles from somewhere else. The articles are
    getting injected at KPN and getting peered out to other NNTP servers in
    the worldwide mesh network that is Usenet. Eventually through this
    peering the KPN-sourced article gets retrieved by the Giganews server.
    Obviously neither KPN is not employing any spam/flood filtering, like
    using the xxx filter, or the asshole is making sure the number of his
    posts is under the threshold for that filter.

    You'll have to send a complaint to KPN to report this asshole. It's
    their customer that is flooding Usenet. Giganews can't do anything
    about how KPN handles the accounts for KPN's customers. I've run into
    similar situtations with e-mail providers. I might know that a
    recipient's mailbox is full and why they cannot receive any more e-mails
    but me telling the recipient's e-mail provider is going to have no
    effect on fixing this type of lockout. I'm not their e-mail customer.
    If I have no other contact for recipient, I can't tell them to clean out
    their mailbox so they can receive more new e-mails. I had a buddy whose
    company blacklist (in flaky fashion) e-mails that came from Yahoo
    senders. Me telling his company about their invalid blacklisting on
    Yahoo wouldn't help because I don't work for his company. I'm not their
    employee. About the only time you can get someone else (whether you're
    an e-mail user or another e-mail provider) to fix their e-mail service
    is when the problem exists within their e-mail service, not with a
    particular customer of theirs. They'll protect their customer and
    ignore external requests to expend their resources on a problem that has
    not yet been reported by their own customer.

    If you want KPN to kill this asshole's account then complain to KPN, not
    to your ISP. For me, filtering is far more effective than hoping some
    ignorant or [often deliberately] blind Usenet provider will do anything
    about bad behavior by their customers.
     
    VanguardLH, Aug 22, 2012
    #14
  15. - Bobb -

    Paul Guest

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > "Robert Baer" wrote:
    >
    >> Ken Whiton wrote:
    >>> *-* On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, at 11:26:19 -0700,
    >>> *-* In Article<>,
    >>> *-* Robert Baer wrote
    >>> *-* About Re: Scan - to file vs blank email and attachment vs Send to
    >>>
    >>>> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
    >>>> X-Complaints-To:
    >>>> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>>> "Robert Baer" wrote:
    >>>>>> OT subject:
    >>>>>> How in the (#$$%!@ heck can we STOP these 2 idiots from
    >>>>>> overloading this NG?
    >>>>> I'm seeing this thread while visiting the alt.computer newsgroup.
    >>> [ ... ]
    >>>
    >>>>> I see about 1 minute later that you decided to repost (as a new
    >>>>> thread) an exact duplicate of your complaint post submitted under
    >>>>> this thread. Similarly, you never bothered to identify the "2
    >>>>> idiots" to which you were referring. If you're talking about the
    >>>>> jumbled mess nym that is flooding the alt.computer newsgroup (and
    >>>>> probably elsewhere),
    >>> "Probably elsewhere" is correct. I recently read about the same
    >>> thing happening in the alt.humor.puns newsgroup.
    >>>
    >>> [ ... ]
    >>>
    >>>>> I know and filter out that one KPN-using idiot. I don't what might
    >>>>> be the 2nd idiot to which you refer.
    >>>> RECENT POSTINGS
    >>> [Quoting selected headers, relevant to my comments in this post]
    >>>
    >>>> From:
    >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:28:42 +0000 (UTC)
    >>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19
    >>>
    >>>> From:
    >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:33:42 +0000 (UTC)
    >>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19
    >>>
    >>>> From:
    >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:38:43 +0000 (UTC)
    >>>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19
    >>>> *** END COPY
    >>> VanguardLH is correct that it's one poster. Note that regardless
    >>> of which name appears in the "From:" header, all the posts in question
    >>> originate from the same IP address (NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19).
    >>> Here is some selected information extracted from a "whois" look-up on
    >>> that address.
    >>>
    >>> Host static.kpn.net
    >>> Location NL, Netherlands
    >>>
    >>> Organization HN-Plus
    >>> ISP Koninklijke KPN N.V.
    >>>
    >>> remarks: Static IP KPN customers
    >>> remarks: Please mail abuse issues to:
    >>> remarks: Please mail security issues to:
    >>>
    >>> You might try e-mailing copies of several of the posts (including
    >>> all headers) to KPN's abuse-reporting address. I'd suggest using the
    >>> subject "Newsgroup Abuse". With luck KPN will cancel the poster's
    >>> account, or otherwise put an end to the flood.
    >>>
    >>> Note, too, the posts are time-stamped five minutes apart, as if
    >>> the postings are automated.
    >>>
    >>> In response to your comment in a later post:
    >>>
    >>>> Will send complaint to my ISP (same as NSP).
    >>> from the headers of your post (the "X-" headers I quoted above) it
    >>> appears that your ISP, LocalNet, doesn't operate their own news
    >>> server, but rather outsources news to Giganews.
    >>>
    >>> Ken Whiton

    >> Am not an expert in these things, will take your word for that.
    >> The complaint has been forwarded to my ISP, and they have been fairly
    >> good in regard to "ordinary" spam.

    >
    > Your ISP can do nothing about a troll flood in Usenet. They aren't
    > operating the NNTP server. Even if they were contracting with Giganews
    > to provide Usenet services, Giganews won't do much, either. They are
    > *peering* the asshole's articles from somewhere else. The articles are
    > getting injected at KPN and getting peered out to other NNTP servers in
    > the worldwide mesh network that is Usenet. Eventually through this
    > peering the KPN-sourced article gets retrieved by the Giganews server.
    > Obviously neither KPN is not employing any spam/flood filtering, like
    > using the xxx filter, or the asshole is making sure the number of his
    > posts is under the threshold for that filter.
    >
    > You'll have to send a complaint to KPN to report this asshole. It's
    > their customer that is flooding Usenet. Giganews can't do anything
    > about how KPN handles the accounts for KPN's customers. I've run into
    > similar situtations with e-mail providers. I might know that a
    > recipient's mailbox is full and why they cannot receive any more e-mails
    > but me telling the recipient's e-mail provider is going to have no
    > effect on fixing this type of lockout. I'm not their e-mail customer.
    > If I have no other contact for recipient, I can't tell them to clean out
    > their mailbox so they can receive more new e-mails. I had a buddy whose
    > company blacklist (in flaky fashion) e-mails that came from Yahoo
    > senders. Me telling his company about their invalid blacklisting on
    > Yahoo wouldn't help because I don't work for his company. I'm not their
    > employee. About the only time you can get someone else (whether you're
    > an e-mail user or another e-mail provider) to fix their e-mail service
    > is when the problem exists within their e-mail service, not with a
    > particular customer of theirs. They'll protect their customer and
    > ignore external requests to expend their resources on a problem that has
    > not yet been reported by their own customer.
    >
    > If you want KPN to kill this asshole's account then complain to KPN, not
    > to your ISP. For me, filtering is far more effective than hoping some
    > ignorant or [often deliberately] blind Usenet provider will do anything
    > about bad behavior by their customers.


    An example of a header from a couple years ago, looks like this. It
    included an abuse address.

    Message-ID: <4a0fe629$0$29211$>
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.169.52
    X-Trace: 1242555945 news.kpn.nl 29211 213.10.169.52:57715
    X-Complaints-To: <----

    The current spew, looks like this. No abuse address.

    Message-ID: <5024bfd7$0$10065$>
    Organization: KPN.com
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.75.39.19
    X-Trace: 1344585687 news.kpn.nl 10065 213.75.39.19@kpn/213.75.39.19:56580

    A thread in Dutch, claims these are all using the same server. So
    there are likely some variations on the abuse address as well.

    news.kpn.nl
    news.kpnplanet.nl
    nova.planet.nl
    binaries.news.planet.nl

    So maybe , ,
    could all be CCed or something.

    Paul
     
    Paul, Aug 22, 2012
    #15
  16. - Bobb -

    Guest

    wrote:
    > Robert Baer wrote:
    >
    > <Snip>
    >> I have been seeing around 100 posts at alt.computer on a DAILY basis
    >> from what appears to be two idiots exactly describes as you did ("the
    >> jumbled mess nym" in both cases).
    >>
    >> These posts are in English and the body is an exact copy of the
    >> subject, and are something like (faking now) "Good times ^_^".
    >>
    >> I have heard this nasty (to me) rumor that a filter can be used.
    >> First,where is it (SeaMonkey)?
    >> Second, how do i use it assuming it exists (have yet to find it)?
    >> (by sender?, by something else?)
    >> Third,since i saw nothing in the posts referring to KPN,how would it
    >> do that "discovery"?
    >>
    >> Thank you very much for your patience in addressing my abysmal
    >> ignorance concerning "filters".

    >
    > Robert, I'm using SeaMonkey 2.11 and just the other day I made myself a
    > filter to get rid of these annoying posts.
    >
    > 1, In SeaMonkey, go to Tools->Message Filters
    > 2. Select the News server/group that you want the filter to apply to (I
    > normally do it server wide)
    > 3. Give it a name (I usually call it after what I'm filtering on)
    > 4. In this case, under the drop-down for "Subject", select "From"
    > 5. You would have noted that the posts are coming from more than one
    > address, but the server side is the same, so Copy/Paste the server name
    > into the empty field to the right of "contains"
    > 6. Select what you want to happen to the message.
    > 7. Click "OK".
    >
    > It will not apply to the headers that you've listed today/tonight, but
    > for future listings, the filter will apply.
    >
    > HTH
    >
    > (If you need further assistance with SeaMonkey, set yourself up a news
    > sever for news.mozilla.org and subscribe to the group
    > mozilla.support.seamonkey and ask away!!)
    >
    > (Also you are using SeaMonkey version 2.7.1 ... a bit old, we are now at
    > version 2.11)
    >
    > Daniel
    >


    .......and then I read, elsewhere in the thread, that Robert had been
    given this information before hand!

    Daniel
     
    , Aug 22, 2012
    #16
    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. The Prophecy

    cannot send attachment with email

    The Prophecy, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,747
    Sylvain Portugais
    Jun 16, 2004
  2. RalphOcean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    521
    RalphOcean
    Dec 19, 2006
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    684
  4. =?Utf-8?B?R3JlZyBLaXJrcGF0cmljaw==?=

    blank CD-R and blank DVD-R not recognized by Vista 64 Ultimate

    =?Utf-8?B?R3JlZyBLaXJrcGF0cmljaw==?=, Sep 13, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,209
    =?Utf-8?B?VGVsZXN0ZXM=?=
    Nov 7, 2007
  5. northernguy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,289
    northernguy
    Jan 23, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page