Ludicrous AIOE error messages

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?

It used to reject:
1. Duplicate articles.
2. Articles with too many crossposted newsgroups (> 5).
3. Articles with more than two newsgroups and no followup-to.
4. Articles with excessive quoting.
5. Articles with long lines.

That isn't too bothersome, except the last item, which causes problems
with posting long URLs (which won't post if not broken up, but won't
work if broken up, either with a click or copy/paste) and sometimes
smacks someone who merely had the temerity to QUOTE an article with long
lines (without adding any of their own!).

It also used to have a 25 posts per user per day limit, which was
somewhat onerous but not enormously so.

In the last few days it's much worse. I've seen all of these when
posting followups to some political articles:

441 Multipost.

Usually after a failed attempt when I correct something and resend. It
seems to sometimes incorrectly class a failed attempt as successful, and
thus consider the subsequent attempt to be a duplicate article when it
really isn't.

441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

After successfully posting as few as zero(!) articles in one day from
one IP address, and making as few as three attempts in one day (counting
the one that generates the above bogus error message). More commonly,
only after four or five successful posts. Occasionally I get to make
*ten* posts in a single day. Wow, *ten*!

The limit was obviously lowered from 25 to rand_int(10) or some such
idiocy.

441 Nonexistent group.

OK, but can it not either:
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header? or
2. At least tell me WHICH group. In the latest instance it was
alt.republican, but I had to check the other four groups against the
server's active list to determine this fact. (It happened to be the
final group in the list, so the worst case happened, checking four
other groups and finding that they ARE on the list, thus determining
which group is the problem group by process of elimination.)

441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

This is doubly ridiculous, and possibly triply so:
1. The body of the particular post at issue did not contain any mention
of "URIBL.com" at all, and I checked it twice. When I reposted it
after ROT13ing every single URL and email address it posted, so it
apparently objected to *some* domain nam in the body but the message
was in error as to which domain.
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to infringing
freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one of the domains
being "banned" they can't. That goes against the spirit of Usenet in
a very major way.
3. If this post succeeds, then the domain identified by the error
message is, itself, NOT banned, just to add to the silliness, meaning
the error message was caused by Y.com, erroneously said that it was
caused by X.com, and to top it off, X.com itself DOESN'T cause it.
(Perhaps even more amusing will be if this fails, but the error
message now identifies the domain that it didn't like from the OTHER
message. But if you're reading this at all, it succeeded; if it fails
I'll rewrite this entire section to work around the problem.)

Regardless of what is done about the rest of this, I must insist that
blocking posts based on the occurrence of words, phrases, names, or
similarly in the body cannot continue. If this is not corrected AND
apologized for, publicly, in this newsgroup I will discontinue using
AIOE and sign up at eternal-september or albasani.

441 Too many hierarchies.

???

This seems to be triggered by crossposts, because trimming groups fixes
it. But it occurs with five and sometimes even fewer newsgroups, not
solely six or more. This is another one that's quite problematic.



AIOE is getting as ridiculous for nannying rules and random, undisclosed
blocks and limitations as that troll Greg Hall complains about. Until
the last few days I didn't take any of his numerous rants seriously,
noting that AIOE was a little bit anal but work-with-able. With the
recent changes, it is no longer work-with-able in my opinion. In
particular, with one fairly long post it took me longer to send the
bloody thing than to write it. It was a perfectly legitimate post, and
well within what "old AIOE" would have accepted as regards crossposts,
followup-to, and suchlike, but it took me ages to get it to send. Over
an hour I'd estimate, with nearly all of the above messages being seen
at one time or another. One should not have to jump through hoops to
post something! Well, except maybe if you're trying to spam. I wasn't; I
was debunking a misogynist who had posted a bunch of nonsense to several
politics and women's newsgroups, which I'd argue is a public service.

Particularly annoying is that I kept having to change my IP address. I
kept getting "your userid has posted too many articles", even though
this was my SECOND POST OF THE DAY I was trying to post. I'd made one
short post successfully a few minutes earlier. Then this one kept giving
AIOE fits for no really good reason, and every third attempt or so I'd
get the "too many articles" BS. It looks like the limit-for-the-day came
up from the PRNG as 2. The basic pattern went like this: attempt the
post (441 too many articles), disconnect and reconnect, attempt the post
(quietly fails without explanation at all, or else timeout error),
attempt the post (441 some random BS such as "banned domain"), change
something, attempt the post (441 too many articles), wash, rinse,
repeat.

I consider my changing my IP to work around the ridiculous behavior
noted above as legitimate, because THIS post here will be only my FOURTH
actual post of the day once I get IT to succeed (fingers crossed now).
Far less than the "old" limit of 25. I don't consider it unethical to
work around what seems clearly to be broken behavior while remaining so
far within the limit officially set (but buggily enforced by software).

After today, I suspect I shall not be using AIOE any more, unless I hear
confirmation here that the above issues have been fixed and people can
once again use AIOE to reply to stuff without all kinds of jumping
through hoops (a followup-to: and maybe some newsgroups trimmed and away
they go).

In particular, I *request*:

1. That the "441 No such group" message specify the newsgroup(s) at
issue.
2. That "441 Too many hierarchies" go away entirely.
3. That "441 Multipost." correctly only consider successful posts as
potential duplicates of the submission. An unsuccessful one with
an identical body is either going to fail anyway (if the body was
the issue, e.g. too much quoted text), or, if it succeeds (because
it was a header change that fixed it), is not actually a multi-post
because it is the first post with that body to actually appear
online.

Furthermore, I *require* (on pain of not using AIOE until these are
fixed, and acknowledged to be fixed):

1. That "441 Your userid has posted too many articles" only ever appears
if *at least* 25 successful posts were submitted by that "userid" in
the preceding 24 hours, or else during the current calendar day, one
or the other. I.e. that the limit be returned to its original value,
if not made an even higher one, and that it return to being, and
henceforth remain, deterministic and predictable.
2. There are no restrictions on body content, except possibly percentage
of quoted material.

[Obama Nation = Abomination]

You're right.

AIOE can be really fucked-up.





On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 21:44:09 +0000 (UTC), The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?
1. Duplicate articles.
2. Articles with too many crossposted newsgroups (> 5).
3. Articles with more than two newsgroups and no followup-to.
4. Articles with excessive quoting.
5. Articles with long lines.
That isn't too bothersome, except the last item, which causes problems
with posting long URLs (which won't post if not broken up, but won't
work if broken up, either with a click or copy/paste) and sometimes
smacks someone who merely had the temerity to QUOTE an article with long
lines (without adding any of their own!).
It also used to have a 25 posts per user per day limit, which was
somewhat onerous but not enormously so.
In the last few days it's much worse. I've seen all of these when
441 Multipost.
Usually after a failed attempt when I correct something and resend. It
seems to sometimes incorrectly class a failed attempt as successful, and
thus consider the subsequent attempt to be a duplicate article when it
really isn't.
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.
After successfully posting as few as zero(!) articles in one day from
one IP address, and making as few as three attempts in one day (counting
the one that generates the above bogus error message). More commonly,
only after four or five successful posts. Occasionally I get to make
*ten* posts in a single day. Wow, *ten*!
The limit was obviously lowered from 25 to rand_int(10) or some such
idiocy.
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header? or
2. At least tell me WHICH group. In the latest instance it was
alt.republican, but I had to check the other four groups against the
server's active list to determine this fact. (It happened to be the
final group in the list, so the worst case happened, checking four
other groups and finding that they ARE on the list, thus determining
which group is the problem group by process of elimination.)
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com
1. The body of the particular post at issue did not contain any mention
of "URIBL.com" at all, and I checked it twice. When I reposted it
after ROT13ing every single URL and email address it posted, so it
apparently objected to *some* domain nam in the body but the message
was in error as to which domain.
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to infringing
freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one of the domains
being "banned" they can't. That goes against the spirit of Usenet in
a very major way.
3. If this post succeeds, then the domain identified by the error
message is, itself, NOT banned, just to add to the silliness, meaning
the error message was caused by Y.com, erroneously said that it was
caused by X.com, and to top it off, X.com itself DOESN'T cause it.
(Perhaps even more amusing will be if this fails, but the error
message now identifies the domain that it didn't like from the OTHER
message. But if you're reading this at all, it succeeded; if it fails
I'll rewrite this entire section to work around the problem.)
Regardless of what is done about the rest of this, I must insist that
blocking posts based on the occurrence of words, phrases, names, or
similarly in the body cannot continue. If this is not corrected AND
apologized for, publicly, in this newsgroup I will discontinue using
AIOE and sign up at eternal-september or albasani.
441 Too many hierarchies.
???
This seems to be triggered by crossposts, because trimming groups fixes
it. But it occurs with five and sometimes even fewer newsgroups, not
solely six or more. This is another one that's quite problematic.
AIOE is getting as ridiculous for nannying rules and random, undisclosed
blocks and limitations as that troll Greg Hall complains about. Until
the last few days I didn't take any of his numerous rants seriously,
noting that AIOE was a little bit anal but work-with-able. With the
recent changes, it is no longer work-with-able in my opinion. In
particular, with one fairly long post it took me longer to send the
bloody thing than to write it. It was a perfectly legitimate post, and
well within what "old AIOE" would have accepted as regards crossposts,
followup-to, and suchlike, but it took me ages to get it to send. Over
an hour I'd estimate, with nearly all of the above messages being seen
at one time or another. One should not have to jump through hoops to
post something! Well, except maybe if you're trying to spam. I wasn't; I
was debunking a misogynist who had posted a bunch of nonsense to several
politics and women's newsgroups, which I'd argue is a public service.
Particularly annoying is that I kept having to change my IP address. I
kept getting "your userid has posted too many articles", even though
this was my SECOND POST OF THE DAY I was trying to post. I'd made one
short post successfully a few minutes earlier. Then this one kept giving
AIOE fits for no really good reason, and every third attempt or so I'd
get the "too many articles" BS. It looks like the limit-for-the-day came
up from the PRNG as 2. The basic pattern went like this: attempt the
post (441 too many articles), disconnect and reconnect, attempt the post
(quietly fails without explanation at all, or else timeout error),
attempt the post (441 some random BS such as "banned domain"), change
something, attempt the post (441 too many articles), wash, rinse,
repeat.
I consider my changing my IP to work around the ridiculous behavior
noted above as legitimate, because THIS post here will be only my FOURTH
actual post of the day once I get IT to succeed (fingers crossed now).
Far less than the "old" limit of 25. I don't consider it unethical to
work around what seems clearly to be broken behavior while remaining so
far within the limit officially set (but buggily enforced by software).
After today, I suspect I shall not be using AIOE any more, unless I hear
confirmation here that the above issues have been fixed and people can
once again use AIOE to reply to stuff without all kinds of jumping
through hoops (a followup-to: and maybe some newsgroups trimmed and away
they go).
1. That the "441 No such group" message specify the newsgroup(s) at
issue.
2. That "441 Too many hierarchies" go away entirely.
3. That "441 Multipost." correctly only consider successful posts as
potential duplicates of the submission. An unsuccessful one with
an identical body is either going to fail anyway (if the body was
the issue, e.g. too much quoted text), or, if it succeeds (because
it was a header change that fixed it), is not actually a multi-post
because it is the first post with that body to actually appear
online.
Furthermore, I *require* (on pain of not using AIOE until these are
1. That "441 Your userid has posted too many articles" only ever appears
if *at least* 25 successful posts were submitted by that "userid" in
the preceding 24 hours, or else during the current calendar day, one
or the other. I.e. that the limit be returned to its original value,
if not made an even higher one, and that it return to being, and
henceforth remain, deterministic and predictable.
2. There are no restrictions on body content, except possibly percentage
of quoted material.
--
Scheming to take over the world since 1979.

[_***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid]

Don't use Aioe or TeraNews to post.

I use these NNTP servers:

Tio Tioat.NET:8119 No_Login
Glorb Homer.Glorb.COM:80 UserName PassWord

S·S News.Shared-Secrets.COM:80 UserName PassWord
Sep Reader80.Eternal-September.ORG:80 UserName PassWord

Tera News.TeraNews.COM:443 UserName PassWord
Aioe NNTP.Aioe.ORG:80 No_Login

I post using Tio, S·S, Glorb or, maybe, Sep (in that order).

I update a news·group using either Tio or Glorb.

I download an single article using anyone of the six, in this order:
S·S, Tera
Tio, Glorb
Sep, Aioe

[D. Stussy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?
1. Duplicate articles.
2. Articles with too many crossposted newsgroups (> 5).
3. Articles with more than two newsgroups and no followup-to.
4. Articles with excessive quoting.
5. Articles with long lines.
That isn't too bothersome, except the last item, which causes problems
with posting long URLs (which won't post if not broken up, but won't
work if broken up, either with a click or copy/paste) and sometimes
smacks someone who merely had the temerity to QUOTE an article with long
lines (without adding any of their own!).
It also used to have a 25 posts per user per day limit, which was
somewhat onerous but not enormously so.
In the last few days it's much worse. I've seen all of these when
441 Multipost.
Usually after a failed attempt when I correct something and resend. It
seems to sometimes incorrectly class a failed attempt as successful, and
thus consider the subsequent attempt to be a duplicate article when it
really isn't.

Since you're seeing this for "political" articles, you should note that
there have been ALOT of political articles that have been crossposted to
non-political groups; so many [groups] that some servers have instituted
additional filters that limit crossposts to at most (usually) 2
non-political groups. How do we determine what is a political group and
what is not? If the group name contains "politi[ck]s?" as a regex
substring, it is a political group, and all others are not.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.
After successfully posting as few as zero(!) articles in one day from
one IP address, and making as few as three attempts in one day (counting
the one that generates the above bogus error message). More commonly,
only after four or five successful posts. Occasionally I get to make
*ten* posts in a single day. Wow, *ten*!
The limit was obviously lowered from 25 to rand_int(10) or some such
idiocy.

You need to review the server's policy. It may be "a 24 hour period" which
need not be the same as a day. Also watch for the timezone.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header? or
2. At least tell me WHICH group. In the latest instance it was
alt.republican, but I had to check the other four groups against the
server's active list to determine this fact. (It happened to be the
final group in the list, so the worst case happened, checking four
other groups and finding that they ARE on the list, thus determining
which group is the problem group by process of elimination.)

The error itself isn't unreasonable. My NNTP client gives a warning when I
try to post to groups not carried by the server. If yours doesn't, perhaps
you should change clients. I do agree that it would be nice if the
server's error identifed the absent group.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com
1. The body of the particular post at issue did not contain any mention
of "URIBL.com" at all, and I checked it twice. When I reposted it
after ROT13ing every single URL and email address it posted, so it
apparently objected to *some* domain nam in the body but the message
was in error as to which domain.

URIBL is actually the blacklist that contains the URL (domain).

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to infringing
freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one of the domains
being "banned" they can't. That goes against the spirit of Usenet in
a very major way.

That's the only way to reduce/eliminate Usenet spam.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
3. If this post succeeds, then the domain identified by the error
message is, itself, NOT banned, just to add to the silliness, meaning
the error message was caused by Y.com, erroneously said that it was
caused by X.com, and to top it off, X.com itself DOESN'T cause it.
(Perhaps even more amusing will be if this fails, but the error
message now identifies the domain that it didn't like from the OTHER
message. But if you're reading this at all, it succeeded; if it fails
I'll rewrite this entire section to work around the problem.)
Regardless of what is done about the rest of this, I must insist that
blocking posts based on the occurrence of words, phrases, names, or
similarly in the body cannot continue. If this is not corrected AND
apologized for, publicly, in this newsgroup I will discontinue using
AIOE and sign up at eternal-september or albasani.
...

Despite AIOE's filters, note that there are other systems that reject other
things. One common filter is being applied to the From/Sender/Reply-To
headers and message-IDs, rejecting alot of syntactically incorrect headers.
Many of these are attempts to munge a mailbox, but result in malformed
patterns. Some people are using "example.com" as their domain-part,
despite the fact that RFCs say these are reserved for documentation and
should NEVER appear on the live Internet. Another abuse is the ".invalid"
TLD, valid for From and Sender, but NOT for Reply-To or message-IDs. Some
are using IP addresses for domains. However, for addresses to be valid
domain literals, they must appear in brackets. Regardless, "localhost"
will never be valid (as every host is "localhost"). I have also seen null
local-parts, domain parts with null elements ("@." or ".."), and other
syntactic nonsense.

Being clever in munging is acceptable. Being overly clever where one runs
afoul of the required syntax isn't.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Multipost.
Usually after a failed attempt when I correct something and resend.
It seems to sometimes incorrectly class a failed attempt as
successful, and thus consider the subsequent attempt to be a
duplicate article when it really isn't.

Since you're seeing this for "political" articles, you should note
that there have been ALOT of political articles that have been
crossposted to non-political groups; so many [groups] that some
servers have instituted additional filters that limit crossposts to at
most (usually) 2 non-political groups. How do we determine what is a
political group and what is not? If the group name contains
"politi[ck]s?" as a regex substring, it is a political group, and all
others are not.

As far as I am aware this is one of the few things AIOE doesn't
restrict. Regardless, "441 Multipost" is when it thinks you've made two
posts with identical bodies. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems to do
that when you haven't. It's meant to get people to crosspost instead of
multipost, i.e. to enforce netiquette, as are many of AIOE's
restrictions. And, like many of AIOE's restrictions, its implementation
has a few bugs.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.
After successfully posting as few as zero(!) articles in one day from
one IP address, and making as few as three attempts in one day
(counting the one that generates the above bogus error message). More
commonly, only after four or five successful posts. Occasionally I
get to make *ten* posts in a single day. Wow, *ten*!
The limit was obviously lowered from 25 to rand_int(10) or some such
idiocy.

You need to review the server's policy. It may be "a 24 hour period"
which need not be the same as a day. Also watch for the timezone.

Neither is relevant. If it ever does this after less than 11 articles
two days in a row, and indeed it has, then I've posted at most 20 during
a contiguous 48 hour period, within which was at least one entire AIOE
"day", no matter how defined, in which I was permitted fewer than 25
posts, in contravention of the stated limit.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line
is carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that
header? or
2. At least tell me WHICH group. In the latest instance it was
alt.republican, but I had to check the other four groups against
the server's active list to determine this fact. (It happened to
be the final group in the list, so the worst case happened,
checking four other groups and finding that they ARE on the list,
thus determining which group is the problem group by process of
elimination.)

The error itself isn't unreasonable.

Even though the server could trim the group for you? As long as it
carries at least one of the groups, the message can be posted
successfully, and the user's response to the error is to do manually and
slowly and awkwardly the exact same thing (remove the problem group(s))
that the server could do quickly and automatically and transparently.

Post by D. Stussy
My NNTP client gives a warning when I try to post to groups not
carried by the server.

Xnews does not, and neither does any other Windows newsreader I've
tried.

If a newsreader did do so, I imagine it would be rather awkward to use,
as it would be spending several seconds retrieving the server's tens-of-
thousands-of-groups active list for every post. Ouch!

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com
1. The body of the particular post at issue did not contain any mention
of "URIBL.com" at all, and I checked it twice. When I reposted it
after ROT13ing every single URL and email address it posted, so it
apparently objected to *some* domain nam in the body but the
message was in error as to which domain.

URIBL is actually the blacklist that contains the URL (domain).

Why does the error message claim that it IS the banned domain then? And
why doesn't it correctly specify the banned domain so you know what to
change? How ridiculously, utterly stupid of them.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to
infringing freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one of
the domains being "banned" they can't. That goes against the
spirit of Usenet in a very major way.

That's the only way to reduce/eliminate Usenet spam.

Bullshit. I've never HEARD of a news server blocking posts based on URLs
or any other specific content in the body before, and I don't see a
whole lot of spam coming from any except groups.google.com.

As if tight posting limits, crossposting limits, and multiposting
banning don't suffice.

Actually, the main spam threat through AIOE would be an automated agent
run off a dial-up connection that was programmed to post randomly-
varying spams until it got an error, hang up and redial, and repeat.
Nothing could filter this, since URLs could be munged in easily-human-
reversible ways in each post, or even varied constantly by having a
large number of throwaway domains that redirect to the main spam page.

The only protection against that would be to rate-limit posts from a
single IP (require a few seconds between posts) and rely on the fact
that hanging up and redialing is slow, so changing IP doesn't get your
bot posting any faster. The main problem of spam is that because it's
automated it can take the form of thousands of messages an hour worth of
traffic clogging groups and bandwidth; so ways of rate-limiting it
render it nearly harmless. Add in NoCeM and attempts to block specific
individual spammers (which, with rate limiting, won't be especially
urgent) and you've got how every OTHER news server keeps spam down to a
dull roar. Without being as draconian as AIOE.

Furthermore, in the specific instance at issue, the block cannot have
been for purposes of spam prevention because neither the message I wrote
nor the message I was replying to (and quoting) was a spam. Both were
political, and perhaps off-topic in a group or two but on-topic in the
rest, but neither were spam. The domains mentioned were:
1. My spam.is.bad.com bogus email address domain, which AIOE clearly
allows.
2. The domain of the other poster; if it has nonspammers posting news
from it AIOE shouldn't block it from appearing in posts, or it blocks
people from replying to those nonspammers, which is clearly wrong.
(Massive false positives.)
3. Youtube. Surely AIOE isn't stupid enough to block that?
4. A domain associated with the current president's campaign. Surely
AIOE isn't stupid enough to block discussions mentioning a political
candidate's domains? That would be an especially egregious attack on
political freedoms -- very difficult to justify.

Furthermore, it can't be #1 (I post with that email all the time and it
normally works), seems very unlikely to be #3, and I tried posting with
only #4 munged and got the same stupid error message. It almost has to
have been #2, which is the email domain of one of the largest cable ISPs
in the world in terms of customer base. Banning mentioning that might
actually be stupider than banning mentioning youtube would be.

Regardless, I reiterate: censoring specific words or phrases from the
body of posts is a violation of free expression and of the spirit of
Usenet that cannot be tolerated.

[D. Stussy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
...

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line
is carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that
header? or
2. At least tell me WHICH group. In the latest instance it was
alt.republican, but I had to check the other four groups against
the server's active list to determine this fact. (It happened to
be the final group in the list, so the worst case happened,
checking four other groups and finding that they ARE on the list,
thus determining which group is the problem group by process of
elimination.)

The error itself isn't unreasonable.

Even though the server could trim the group for you? As long as it
carries at least one of the groups, the message can be posted
successfully, and the user's response to the error is to do manually and
slowly and awkwardly the exact same thing (remove the problem group(s))
that the server could do quickly and automatically and transparently.

Post by D. Stussy
My NNTP client gives a warning when I try to post to groups not
carried by the server.

Xnews does not, and neither does any other Windows newsreader I've
tried.

M$OE will give a warning.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
If a newsreader did do so, I imagine it would be rather awkward to use,
as it would be spending several seconds retrieving the server's tens-of-
thousands-of-groups active list for every post. Ouch!

It keeps a cache of the known groups. Periodically, it requests a
NEWGROUPS command to see if the cached list is out of date.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com
1. The body of the particular post at issue did not contain any mention
of "URIBL.com" at all, and I checked it twice. When I reposted it
after ROT13ing every single URL and email address it posted, so it
apparently objected to *some* domain nam in the body but the
message was in error as to which domain.

URIBL is actually the blacklist that contains the URL (domain).

Why does the error message claim that it IS the banned domain then? And
why doesn't it correctly specify the banned domain so you know what to
change? How ridiculously, utterly stupid of them.

I don't disagree with you. Why not ask on NG "aioe.news.helpdesk"?

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to
infringing freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one of
the domains being "banned" they can't. That goes against the
spirit of Usenet in a very major way.

That's the only way to reduce/eliminate Usenet spam.

Bullshit. I've never HEARD of a news server blocking posts based on URLs
or any other specific content in the body before, and I don't see a
whole lot of spam coming from any except groups.google.com.

Blocking by URL in a message is the regular way of stopping spam on the
real-estate, jobs, and auction related groups. There are some entities
that post over 500 per day to those types of groups. You don't see it
because it is being successfully blocked.

Yesterday, my server killed 128 posts to jobs groups from a single source
(http://natsjobs.com).

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
...
Regardless, I reiterate: censoring specific words or phrases from the
body of posts is a violation of free expression and of the spirit of
Usenet that cannot be tolerated.

Spamming isn't tolerated either. Spam is about content, not just
multiposting.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy
My NNTP client gives a warning when I try to post to groups not
carried by the server.

Xnews does not, and neither does any other Windows newsreader I've
tried.

M$OE will give a warning.

M$OE will also give the computer equivalent of syphilis. Thanks, but no
thanks.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

URIBL is actually the blacklist that contains the URL (domain).

Why does the error message claim that it IS the banned domain then?
And why doesn't it correctly specify the banned domain so you know
what to change? How ridiculously, utterly stupid of them.

I don't disagree with you. Why not ask on NG "aioe.news.helpdesk"?

Because I don't know about it. I do know about this NG.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to
infringing freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one
of the domains being "banned" they can't. That goes against the
spirit of Usenet in a very major way.

That's the only way to reduce/eliminate Usenet spam.

Bullshit. I've never HEARD of a news server blocking posts based on
URLs or any other specific content in the body before, and I don't
see a whole lot of spam coming from any except groups.google.com.

Blocking by URL in a message is the regular way of stopping spam on
the real-estate, jobs, and auction related groups.

I wasn't posting to any of those, or to any moderated groups.

Post by D. Stussy
There are some entities
that post over 500 per day to those types of groups. You don't see it
because it is being successfully blocked.

By AIOE, or by NoCeM and/or despammer cancels?

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Regardless, I reiterate: censoring specific words or phrases from the
body of posts is a violation of free expression and of the spirit of
Usenet that cannot be tolerated.

Spamming isn't tolerated either. Spam is about content, not just
multiposting.

I beg to differ. Spam is massive unsolicited bulk email and massive
off-topic bulk posting. The odd individual ad could be easily ignored;
the problem with spam is the sheer quantity, floods of messages from
automated agents going where such is unwanted.

That absolutely makes Usenet spam about multiposting.

[D. Stussy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy
My NNTP client gives a warning when I try to post to groups not
carried by the server.

Xnews does not, and neither does any other Windows newsreader I've
tried.

M$OE will give a warning.

M$OE will also give the computer equivalent of syphilis. Thanks, but no
thanks.

Well, it is a "windows newsreader" that has the feature you want.
Shocking, isn't it?

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

URIBL is actually the blacklist that contains the URL (domain).

Why does the error message claim that it IS the banned domain then?
And why doesn't it correctly specify the banned domain so you know
what to change? How ridiculously, utterly stupid of them.

I don't disagree with you. Why not ask on NG "aioe.news.helpdesk"?

Because I don't know about it. I do know about this NG.

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to
infringing freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one
of the domains being "banned" they can't. That goes against the
spirit of Usenet in a very major way.

That's the only way to reduce/eliminate Usenet spam.

Bullshit. I've never HEARD of a news server blocking posts based on
URLs or any other specific content in the body before, and I don't
see a whole lot of spam coming from any except groups.google.com.

Blocking by URL in a message is the regular way of stopping spam on
the real-estate, jobs, and auction related groups.

I wasn't posting to any of those, or to any moderated groups.

Now, you've heard. ;-)

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy
There are some entities
that post over 500 per day to those types of groups. You don't see it
because it is being successfully blocked.

By AIOE, or by NoCeM and/or despammer cancels?

By cleanfeed filters (in the case of my server).

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Regardless, I reiterate: censoring specific words or phrases from the
body of posts is a violation of free expression and of the spirit of
Usenet that cannot be tolerated.

Spamming isn't tolerated either. Spam is about content, not just
multiposting.

I beg to differ. Spam is massive unsolicited bulk email and massive
off-topic bulk posting. The odd individual ad could be easily ignored;
the problem with spam is the sheer quantity, floods of messages from
automated agents going where such is unwanted.
That absolutely makes Usenet spam about multiposting.

How do you determine "off-topic" status without examining the contents?
See my point? ;-)

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy
Spamming isn't tolerated either. Spam is about content, not just
multiposting.

I beg to differ. Spam is massive unsolicited bulk email and massive
off-topic bulk posting. The odd individual ad could be easily ignored;
the problem with spam is the sheer quantity, floods of messages from
automated agents going where such is unwanted.
That absolutely makes Usenet spam about multiposting.

How do you determine "off-topic" status without examining the contents?
See my point? ;-)

Not really. The key thing is massive repetition of automated messages. As a
rule, such messages to Usenet are *always* off-topic in a large fraction of
the groups inundated, if not all of them. Generally, endless repetition of
a message is unwanted even where it isn't off-topic. So it's mass
repetition that needs to be detected, not topicality or URLs or anything
else.

[D. Stussy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by D. Stussy
Spamming isn't tolerated either. Spam is about content, not just
multiposting.

I beg to differ. Spam is massive unsolicited bulk email and massive
off-topic bulk posting. The odd individual ad could be easily ignored;
the problem with spam is the sheer quantity, floods of messages from
automated agents going where such is unwanted.
That absolutely makes Usenet spam about multiposting.

How do you determine "off-topic" status without examining the contents?
See my point? ;-)

Not really. The key thing is massive repetition of automated messages. As a
rule, such messages to Usenet are *always* off-topic in a large fraction of
the groups inundated, if not all of them. Generally, endless repetition of
a message is unwanted even where it isn't off-topic. So it's mass
repetition that needs to be detected, not topicality or URLs or anything
else.

Mass repetition of a message is only one type of Usenet spam. It is NOT
the only type.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by D. Stussy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Not really. The key thing is massive repetition of automated
messages. As

a

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
rule, such messages to Usenet are *always* off-topic in a large
fraction

of

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
the groups inundated, if not all of them. Generally, endless
repetition

of

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
a message is unwanted even where it isn't off-topic. So it's mass
repetition that needs to be detected, not topicality or URLs or
anything else.

Mass repetition of a message is only one type of Usenet spam. It is
NOT the only type.

It is the only type that can't readily be coped with without resort to
automated filtering technologies.

[Gregory Hall]

"The Hungarian Conspiracy" <***@spam.is.bad.com> wrote in message news:***@94.75.244.51...
<snippage>

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
AIOE is getting as ridiculous for nannying rules and random, undisclosed
blocks and limitations as that troll Greg Hall complains about. Until
the last few days I didn't take any of his numerous rants seriously,
noting that AIOE was a little bit anal but work-with-able. With the
recent changes, it is no longer work-with-able in my opinion. In
particular, with one fairly long post it took me longer to send the
bloody thing than to write it. It was a perfectly legitimate post, and
well within what "old AIOE" would have accepted as regards crossposts,
followup-to, and suchlike, but it took me ages to get it to send. Over
an hour I'd estimate, with nearly all of the above messages being seen
at one time or another. One should not have to jump through hoops to
post something! Well, except maybe if you're trying to spam. I wasn't; I
was debunking a misogynist who had posted a bunch of nonsense to several
politics and women's newsgroups, which I'd argue is a public service.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what motivates any and all free NSP
admins - a desire to control something, most likely because they have little
or no control over their daily lives. These are dull, downtrodden, geeky
people for the most part who couldn't hold a real job to save their pathetic
lives. They have no social skills and even less personal interaction skills.
They are comfortable only in some dark NOC where they are king of their
realms. They sit there in the dark and play with their software and hardware
when they aren't playing with themselves.

The more they can do to control anything and everything the happier they
become. When they can reach out and abuse some unsuspecting subscriber who
happens to run afoul of one of their many draconian and often contradictory
rules they pounce with glee and slap them. Then they brag about it in public
to bolster what little remains of their self-esteem. These people would be
better off in prison or in mental institutions as that's where their
sociopathic desires could be better ameloriated.

I used to think the aioe admin was cool but the more I see of his crap the
more I realize I was wrong about him. He's not much better than that
deviant, jackbooted thug, censor-happy creep, Ray Banana. He's probably more
software savy and uses software to enforce his rules while the Banana Boi
personally intervenes like some playground bully. I should have realized
that ALL these free NSP admins are losers and without exception. The very
nature of what they do screams LOSER loudly and clearly. The only difference
between them is some are less abusive of their subscribers than others but
every last one of them abuses their subscribers.

Ray Banana and Steven Crooked are the worst of the lot from my own personal
experience. The two conspired behind the scenes and traded confidential IP
information (highly unethical if not against the law) so both of them could
block an IP number so I (and who knows how many hundreds more) couldn't post
using a sock (Gloria on Mixmin and Wesley Mouch on Motzarella). They were so
arrogant and stupid as to actually post bragging about it in this newsgroup.
Bragging and strutting while never realizing how they were simply fulfilling
my propchecy about their ways and means.

Beware using ANY free NSP as the admins think nothing of lying, cheating,
conspiring behind the scenes and trying to make the whole of Usenet into
some net nanny, netKKKop, or Hitleresque endeavour. These people wouldn't
last a week in a real job in a real free enterprise situation. They
gravitate toward computer geek jobs because that's what they are - computer
geeks who have no life outside of anonymously back-stabbing unsuspecting
people while laughing and wanking themselves silly over it.

[aunsc added]
<snipped to end>
--
Gregory Hall

One should view free news servers as one would view
a carnival sideshow. Like a carnival sideshow free
servers arrive in town every so often and there is
always some grifter hawking suspect wares and swindling
gullible people, if not out of their money then their
time. The carnival geek represents the free news server
administrator. The fat lady represents the size of his
ego. The clown represents the usual laughable TOS.
The sword swallower is tantamount to what happens to a
subscriber at the other end of the alimentary canal.
Like the toss the ring at the Coke bottle game, free
news servers are rigged against the user and are
a cheat and a swindle.

[James E. Morrow]

"Gregory Hall" <***@home.fake> wrote in news:***@news.alt.net:

<snip>

Post by Gregory Hall
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what motivates any and all
free NSP admins - a desire to control something, most likely
because they have little or no control over their daily lives.
These are dull, downtrodden, geeky people for the most part who
couldn't hold a real job to save their pathetic lives. They have
no social skills and even less personal interaction skills. They
are comfortable only in some dark NOC where they are king of their
realms. They sit there in the dark and play with their software
and hardware when they aren't playing with themselves.

<snip>

This is an absolutely classic GH post. I'm forwarding a copy to a
family member who is a mental health professional. Gregory you need
help, and soon.

[Gregory Hall]

Post by James E. Morrow
<snip>

Post by Gregory Hall
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what motivates any and all
free NSP admins - a desire to control something, most likely
because they have little or no control over their daily lives.
These are dull, downtrodden, geeky people for the most part who
couldn't hold a real job to save their pathetic lives. They have
no social skills and even less personal interaction skills. They
are comfortable only in some dark NOC where they are king of their
realms. They sit there in the dark and play with their software
and hardware when they aren't playing with themselves.

<snip>
This is an absolutely classic GH post. I'm forwarding a copy to a
family member who is a mental health professional. Gregory you need
help, and soon.

Why do I need a mental health professional? You must be a freaking liberal
who thinks being outspoken and non-politically correct indicates mental
deficiencies.

For your information, I am completely grounded in reality. Just because I
don't shy away from telling it like it is doesn't mean there's anything
wrong with my thinking. I have three things going for me that most other
people do not:

1) very high IQ (150-160, depending upon which professionally administered
test),
2) through the roof logic specific ratings, spatial relationship specifics
off the scale,
3) no scruples writing about my observations concerning stupid to average
people and what makes them dysfunctional.

[unknown]

"Gregory Hall" <***@home.fake> wrote:

[...]

Post by Gregory Hall
Why do I need a mental health professional? You must be a freaking liberal
who thinks being outspoken and non-politically correct indicates mental
deficiencies.

[...]

Your behavior is abnormal. Look around usenet,
how many people post messages similar to yours?

Not many.

Look at the content of your messages. You seem
to be in a perpetual state of distress. That's
also abnormal.

What do you think will happen if you fall silent?

[MartinS]

Post by unknown
[...]

Post by Gregory Hall
Why do I need a mental health professional? You must be a freaking
liberal who thinks being outspoken and non-politically correct
indicates mental deficiencies.

[...]
Your behavior is abnormal. Look around usenet,
how many people post messages similar to yours?
Not many.
Look at the content of your messages. You seem
to be in a perpetual state of distress. That's
also abnormal.
What do you think will happen if you fall silent?

If only - or if people stopped responding to him.

[James E. Morrow]

Post by Gregory Hall

Post by James E. Morrow
<snip>

Post by Gregory Hall
It doesn't take a genius to figure out what motivates any and
all free NSP admins - a desire to control something, most likely
because they have little or no control over their daily lives.
These are dull, downtrodden, geeky people for the most part who
couldn't hold a real job to save their pathetic lives. They have
no social skills and even less personal interaction skills. They
are comfortable only in some dark NOC where they are king of
their realms. They sit there in the dark and play with their
software and hardware when they aren't playing with themselves.

<snip>
This is an absolutely classic GH post. I'm forwarding a copy to a
family member who is a mental health professional. Gregory you
need help, and soon.

For your information, I am completely grounded in reality. Just
because I don't shy away from telling it like it is doesn't mean
there's anything wrong with my thinking. I have three things going

<snip>

Paranoia Agent, Symptom, Cause, Treatment and Medication of Paranoia:
http://www.depression-guide.com/paranoia.htm

Post by Gregory Hall
You must be a freaking liberal
who thinks being outspoken and non-politically correct indicates
.mental deficiencies.

This is not political. I'm a conservative like yourself. But I'm not
looking for some sinister conspiracy. I know how liberals think, if
you call that thinking.

[Sal Hepatica]

Post by James E. Morrow
...
This is not political. I'm a conservative like yourself. But I'm not
looking for some sinister conspiracy. I know how liberals think, if
you call that thinking.

Hm. If liberals all think alike, then it follows that there must be a
liberal conspiracy.

I'm a bit miffed that the liberal conspirators seem to be conspiring to
keep me ignorant of their conspiracy.

What's a liberal to do?

[Robb]

Post by Sal Hepatica

Post by James E. Morrow
...
This is not political. I'm a conservative like yourself. But I'm not
looking for some sinister conspiracy. I know how liberals think, if
you call that thinking.

Hm. If liberals all think alike, then it follows that there must be a
liberal conspiracy.

If you were part of the vast flaming left-wing liberal conspiracy, you'd
know, so it follows that you're probably a Faux Noose Rethuglicant.

Post by Sal Hepatica
I'm a bit miffed that the liberal conspirators seem to be conspiring to
keep me ignorant of their conspiracy.

Only in your min...

Post by Sal Hepatica
What's a liberal to do?

Throw a TeeParty, of course.

[_***@Rabbi_Hitler.Masturbator.inValid]

<PRE>
NNTP server Tioat.NET:8119; No log·in, No sign·up, No problems.

What makes you (Gregory Hall) think Tioat's admin is a
“Hitleresque masturbator” ?

<img src="Loading Image...">

[Gregory Hall]

Post by _***@Rabbi_Hitler.Masturbator.inValid
NNTP server Tioat.NET:8119; No log·in, No sign·up, No problems.
What makes you (Gregory Hall) think Tioat's admin is a
"Hitleresque masturbator" ?

Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read he's a
rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they are - anal
control freaks.

He could be different now but the others will subvert him and he'll change.
They've been putting pressure on him from the very start and if they can't
get him to come around they'll fix it so he's got no peers so he's out of
business. One of the things they do best is conspire against freedom of
speech.

[Ray Banana]

Post by Gregory Hall
Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read he's a
rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they are - anal
control freaks.

Right, I noticed that one of your socks is using tioat to spread its drivel
in one of the sailing groups again, Captain Neal.

Post by Gregory Hall
He could be different now but the others will subvert him and he'll change.
They've been putting pressure on him from the very start and if they can't
get him to come around they'll fix it so he's got no peers so he's out of
business. One of the things they do best is conspire against freedom of
speech.

First of all we(tinw) will give him your confidential IP address, of course.

Bummer.

BTW: As a self-proclaimed Mensa-tard you should know the difference between
"freedom of speech" and "raving imbeciles".

[Mad as a Box of Frogs]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read he's a
rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they are - anal
control freaks.

Since everyone seems to be running this thread commando (deleting posts
like rats from a sinking ship) I'll have to push my barb deeper via RB's
followup.

Captain Neal is it Gweggy??? Still wrestling with identity issues?

The tioat admin is not a rebel. His postion is as old as #eggdrop on
EfNet. Legions of middle class kids before him championed the cause of
"showing Nazi censors" *something* moments before they hopped back in
mom's car and drove home for Sunday pudding and a Big Daddy reload on
their Mastercards.

Running a slipshod server with no means of making an author accountable
drops the rank of Usenet to a moderated masturbation blog.

The boot that lodged in your ass was made by the Doc Martin idiot
division. Are you the *only* moron with a built in dolt feature large
enough to get yourself booted from what is otherwise the least "ruled"
news service Usenet wide?

That must be the case. I've never seen a complaint from anyone but you.

Post by Ray Banana
Right, I noticed that one of your socks is using tioat to spread its drivel
in one of the sailing groups again, Captain Neal.

Post by Gregory Hall
He could be different now but the others will subvert him and he'll change.
They've been putting pressure on him from the very start and if they can't
get him to come around they'll fix it so he's got no peers so he's out of
business. One of the things they do best is conspire against freedom of
speech.

And freedom from morons hiding behind socks flailing their arms for
attention in newsgroups where learned men and women meet in free
discource.

[§ñühw€£f]

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read he's a
rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they are - anal
control freaks.

Since everyone seems to be running this thread commando (deleting posts
like rats from a sinking ship) I'll have to push my barb deeper via RB's
followup.
Captain Neal is it Gweggy??? Still wrestling with identity issues?
The tioat admin is not a rebel. His postion is as old as #eggdrop on
EfNet.

Is that "help" thingy on his wiki a live chat?



Legions of middle class kids before him championed the cause of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
"showing Nazi censors" *something* moments before they hopped back in
mom's car and drove home for Sunday pudding and a Big Daddy reload on
their Mastercards.
Running a slipshod server with no means of making an author

accountable

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
drops the rank of Usenet to a moderated masturbation blog.
The boot that lodged in your ass was made by the Doc Martin idiot
division. Are you the *only* moron with a built in dolt feature large
enough to get yourself booted from what is otherwise the least "ruled"
news service Usenet wide?
That must be the case. I've never seen a complaint from anyone but you.

Gregs a whiney little bitch, thats for sure.

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana
Right, I noticed that one of your socks is using tioat to spread its drivel
in one of the sailing groups again, Captain Neal.

Post by Gregory Hall
He could be different now but the others will subvert him and he'll change.
They've been putting pressure on him from the very start and if they can't
get him to come around they'll fix it so he's got no peers so he's out of
business. One of the things they do best is conspire against

freedom of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
speech.

And freedom from morons hiding behind socks flailing their arms for
attention in newsgroups where learned men and women meet in free
discource.

The admin of tioat has blocked two of my poasts, one was an interesting
error message about flaming.
The other was a xpoast limit. So it seems that tioat has some rules in
place.

^_^

P.S., there should be a "no gregs" rule.

[Son of Serpent Esq]

Post by §ñühw€£f
Is that "help" thingy on his wiki a live chat?

It's an AI chat bot based on the Alicebot. I'm not allowed to remove
it from the site because this bot babe fell in love with it. I got
bored with it awhile ago and took it off and she threatened to pull
my eyelashes out with a pair of rusty tweezers. What would you do?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/programe/

Post by §ñühw€£f
The admin of tioat has blocked two of my poasts, one was an interesting
error message about flaming.
The other was a xpoast limit. So it seems that tioat has some rules in
place.

And don't take the rejects too personal; tioat is an acronym for
"this is only a test" and sometimes those tests don't quite work as
expected. Use alt.free.newsservers or the local groups on tioat.net
for comments and stuff. ;)

[_***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid]

<PRE>
Does Tioat.NET discriminate against flaming fags ?
<img src="Loading Image...">

[DAB]

Post by Son of Serpent Esq

Post by §ñühw€£f
Is that "help" thingy on his wiki a live chat?

It's an AI chat bot based on the Alicebot. I'm not allowed to remove
it from the site because this bot babe fell in love with it. I got
bored with it awhile ago and took it off and she threatened to pull
my eyelashes out with a pair of rusty tweezers. What would you do?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/programe/

Yous a smart snake ;-) cex is a good discussion topic with the bot.

[§ñühw€£f]

Post by Son of Serpent Esq

Post by §ñühw€£f
Is that "help" thingy on his wiki a live chat?

It's an AI chat bot based on the Alicebot. I'm not allowed to remove
it from the site because this bot babe fell in love with it. I got
bored with it awhile ago and took it off and she threatened to pull
my eyelashes out with a pair of rusty tweezers. What would you do?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/programe/

That was my second guess since it went straight to an uncomfortable
question.

Post by Son of Serpent Esq

Post by §ñühw€£f
The admin of tioat has blocked two of my poasts, one was an

interesting

Post by Son of Serpent Esq

Post by §ñühw€£f
error message about flaming.
The other was a xpoast limit. So it seems that tioat has some rules in
place.

And don't take the rejects too personal; tioat is an acronym for
"this is only a test" and sometimes those tests don't quite work as
expected. Use alt.free.newsservers or the local groups on tioat.net
for comments and stuff. ;)

Kewl...I'll look for the local froups then.

^_^

[Mad as a Box of Frogs]

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read
he's a rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they
are - anal control freaks.

whir

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
Legions of middle class kids before him championed the cause of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
"showing Nazi censors" *something* moments before they hopped back in
mom's car and drove home for Sunday pudding and a Big Daddy reload on
their Mastercards.
Running a slipshod server with no means of making an author
accountable drops the rank of Usenet to a moderated masturbation blog.
The boot that lodged in your ass was made by the Doc Martin idiot
division. Are you the *only* moron with a built in dolt feature large
enough to get yourself booted from what is otherwise the least "ruled"
news service Usenet wide?
That must be the case. I've never seen a complaint from anyone but

you.
Gregs a whiney little bitch, thats for sure.

Is this really Gweggy?
http://outingextremistanti-scientologists.blogspot.com/

It *has* to be. Tell me it is.

Gweegy has that "hey how do ya like me with eyebrow raised a bit Babs?"
look to him.

Almost better still...the POLL taker.

Is Barbara Schwartz a Desirable Woman?
[] Definitely
[] Without a doubt
[] Unquestionably
[] All of the above

WTF HAPPENED TO:???

[] No, she's a high caliber whacko


gweggy???? That poll is loaded to hell with your love choices.
No option for a decent NO vote!

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana
Right, I noticed that one of your socks is using tioat to spread its

drivel

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana
in one of the sailing groups again, Captain Neal.

Post by Gregory Hall
He could be different now but the others will subvert him and he'll

change.

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
They've been putting pressure on him from the very start and if

they can't

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
get him to come around they'll fix it so he's got no peers so he's

out of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
business. One of the things they do best is conspire against

freedom of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
speech.

And freedom from morons hiding behind socks flailing their arms for
attention in newsgroups where learned men and women meet in free
discource.

The admin of tioat has blocked two of my poasts, one was an interesting
error message about flaming.
The other was a xpoast limit. So it seems that tioat has some rules in
place.

Velllllly innnnnntelesting. Not so radical afterall?

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
^_^
P.S., there should be a "no gregs" rule.

[§ñühw€£f]

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read
he's a rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they
are - anal control freaks.

whir

bzzzzzzz

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
Legions of middle class kids before him championed the cause of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
"showing Nazi censors" *something* moments before they hopped back in
mom's car and drove home for Sunday pudding and a Big Daddy reload on
their Mastercards.
Running a slipshod server with no means of making an author
accountable drops the rank of Usenet to a moderated masturbation blog.
The boot that lodged in your ass was made by the Doc Martin idiot
division. Are you the *only* moron with a built in dolt feature large
enough to get yourself booted from what is otherwise the least "ruled"
news service Usenet wide?
That must be the case. I've never seen a complaint from anyone but

you.
Gregs a whiney little bitch, thats for sure.

Is this really Gweggy?
http://outingextremistanti-scientologists.blogspot.com/

Never seen the dorks piccy...

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
It *has* to be. Tell me it is.
Gweegy has that "hey how do ya like me with eyebrow raised a bit Babs?"
look to him.
Almost better still...the POLL taker.
Is Barbara Schwartz a Desirable Woman?
[] Definitely
[] Without a doubt
[] Unquestionably
[] All of the above
WTF HAPPENED TO:???
[] No, she's a high caliber whacko

He does seem infatuated with her :(

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
gweggy???? That poll is loaded to hell with your love choices.
No option for a decent NO vote!

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana
Right, I noticed that one of your socks is using tioat to spread its

drivel

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana
in one of the sailing groups again, Captain Neal.

Post by Gregory Hall
He could be different now but the others will subvert him and he'll

change.

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
They've been putting pressure on him from the very start and if

they can't

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
get him to come around they'll fix it so he's got no peers so he's

out of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
business. One of the things they do best is conspire against

freedom of

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
speech.

And freedom from morons hiding behind socks flailing their arms for
attention in newsgroups where learned men and women meet in free
discource.

The admin of tioat has blocked two of my poasts, one was an

interesting

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
error message about flaming.
The other was a xpoast limit. So it seems that tioat has some rules in
place.

Velllllly innnnnntelesting. Not so radical afterall?

Its a test server apparently.
Nice project for learning I presume.

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs

Post by Mad as a Box of Frogs
^_^
P.S., there should be a "no gregs" rule.

Iem seconding my own nomination.
So Mote It Be!

[Dagny Taggart]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Gregory Hall
Good point. I forgot about tioat and its admin. From what I've read he's a
rebel out to show the Nazi censors that they are just what they are - anal
control freaks.

Right, I noticed that one of your socks is using tioat to spread its drivel
in one of the sailing groups again, Captain Neal.

Which one would that be? We wonders, yes we does.

--
Dagny Taggart

[Yvan Hall]

www.superaffiliate7.com

Log on to Find out how you can make money by clicking my Web Site.
You will find good Affiiliates for health products, such as EDTA-Oral
Chelation,
Apricot kernels for cancer treament, Other affiliates are for Computer,
household products, Satellite TV (You may watch International Channel on
your Computer),
Download Commmercial Movies, Email, Free Horoscope.

Post by Gregory Hall
<snippage>

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
AIOE is getting as ridiculous for nannying rules and random, undisclosed
blocks and limitations as that troll Greg Hall complains about. Until
the last few days I didn't take any of his numerous rants seriously,
noting that AIOE was a little bit anal but work-with-able. With the
recent changes, it is no longer work-with-able in my opinion. In
particular, with one fairly long post it took me longer to send the
bloody thing than to write it. It was a perfectly legitimate post, and
well within what "old AIOE" would have accepted as regards crossposts,
followup-to, and suchlike, but it took me ages to get it to send. Over
an hour I'd estimate, with nearly all of the above messages being seen
at one time or another. One should not have to jump through hoops to
post something! Well, except maybe if you're trying to spam. I wasn't; I
was debunking a misogynist who had posted a bunch of nonsense to several
politics and women's newsgroups, which I'd argue is a public service.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what motivates any and all free NSP
admins - a desire to control something, most likely because they have
little or no control over their daily lives. These are dull, downtrodden,
geeky people for the most part who couldn't hold a real job to save their
pathetic lives. They have no social skills and even less personal
interaction skills. They are comfortable only in some dark NOC where they
are king of their realms. They sit there in the dark and play with their
software and hardware when they aren't playing with themselves.
The more they can do to control anything and everything the happier they
become. When they can reach out and abuse some unsuspecting subscriber who
happens to run afoul of one of their many draconian and often
contradictory rules they pounce with glee and slap them. Then they brag
about it in public to bolster what little remains of their self-esteem.
These people would be better off in prison or in mental institutions as
that's where their sociopathic desires could be better ameloriated.
I used to think the aioe admin was cool but the more I see of his crap the
more I realize I was wrong about him. He's not much better than that
deviant, jackbooted thug, censor-happy creep, Ray Banana. He's probably
more software savy and uses software to enforce his rules while the Banana
Boi personally intervenes like some playground bully. I should have
realized that ALL these free NSP admins are losers and without exception.
The very nature of what they do screams LOSER loudly and clearly. The only
difference between them is some are less abusive of their subscribers than
others but every last one of them abuses their subscribers.
Ray Banana and Steven Crooked are the worst of the lot from my own
personal experience. The two conspired behind the scenes and traded
confidential IP information (highly unethical if not against the law) so
both of them could block an IP number so I (and who knows how many
hundreds more) couldn't post using a sock (Gloria on Mixmin and Wesley
Mouch on Motzarella). They were so arrogant and stupid as to actually post
bragging about it in this newsgroup. Bragging and strutting while never
realizing how they were simply fulfilling my propchecy about their ways
and means.
Beware using ANY free NSP as the admins think nothing of lying, cheating,
conspiring behind the scenes and trying to make the whole of Usenet into
some net nanny, netKKKop, or Hitleresque endeavour. These people wouldn't
last a week in a real job in a real free enterprise situation. They
gravitate toward computer geek jobs because that's what they are -
computer geeks who have no life outside of anonymously back-stabbing
unsuspecting people while laughing and wanking themselves silly over it.
[aunsc added]
<snipped to end>
--
Gregory Hall
One should view free news servers as one would view
a carnival sideshow. Like a carnival sideshow free
servers arrive in town every so often and there is
always some grifter hawking suspect wares and swindling
gullible people, if not out of their money then their
time. The carnival geek represents the free news server
administrator. The fat lady represents the size of his
ego. The clown represents the usual laughable TOS.
The sword swallower is tantamount to what happens to a
subscriber at the other end of the alimentary canal.
Like the toss the ring at the Coke bottle game, free
news servers are rigged against the user and are
a cheat and a swindle.

[Tony]

I imagine is may even get worst when the coachroaches from Verizon come
feasting on AIOE at the end of this month. Piss off, Verizoneers.
Verizoneers are like the pioneers but the pioneers didn't have internet.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?
1. Duplicate articles.
2. Articles with too many crossposted newsgroups (> 5).
3. Articles with more than two newsgroups and no followup-to.
4. Articles with excessive quoting.
5. Articles with long lines.
That isn't too bothersome, except the last item, which causes problems
with posting long URLs (which won't post if not broken up, but won't
work if broken up, either with a click or copy/paste) and sometimes
smacks someone who merely had the temerity to QUOTE an article with long
lines (without adding any of their own!).
It also used to have a 25 posts per user per day limit, which was
somewhat onerous but not enormously so.
In the last few days it's much worse. I've seen all of these when
441 Multipost.
Usually after a failed attempt when I correct something and resend. It
seems to sometimes incorrectly class a failed attempt as successful, and
thus consider the subsequent attempt to be a duplicate article when it
really isn't.
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.
After successfully posting as few as zero(!) articles in one day from
one IP address, and making as few as three attempts in one day (counting
the one that generates the above bogus error message). More commonly,
only after four or five successful posts. Occasionally I get to make
*ten* posts in a single day. Wow, *ten*!
The limit was obviously lowered from 25 to rand_int(10) or some such
idiocy.
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header? or
2. At least tell me WHICH group. In the latest instance it was
alt.republican, but I had to check the other four groups against the
server's active list to determine this fact. (It happened to be the
final group in the list, so the worst case happened, checking four
other groups and finding that they ARE on the list, thus determining
which group is the problem group by process of elimination.)
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com
1. The body of the particular post at issue did not contain any mention
of "URIBL.com" at all, and I checked it twice. When I reposted it
after ROT13ing every single URL and email address it posted, so it
apparently objected to *some* domain nam in the body but the message
was in error as to which domain.
2. It's ludicrous to block posts based on any property of the *body*,
save perhaps excessive quoting. This treads very close to infringing
freedom of speech. If someone wants to discuss one of the domains
being "banned" they can't. That goes against the spirit of Usenet in
a very major way.
3. If this post succeeds, then the domain identified by the error
message is, itself, NOT banned, just to add to the silliness, meaning
the error message was caused by Y.com, erroneously said that it was
caused by X.com, and to top it off, X.com itself DOESN'T cause it.
(Perhaps even more amusing will be if this fails, but the error
message now identifies the domain that it didn't like from the OTHER
message. But if you're reading this at all, it succeeded; if it fails
I'll rewrite this entire section to work around the problem.)
Regardless of what is done about the rest of this, I must insist that
blocking posts based on the occurrence of words, phrases, names, or
similarly in the body cannot continue. If this is not corrected AND
apologized for, publicly, in this newsgroup I will discontinue using
AIOE and sign up at eternal-september or albasani.
441 Too many hierarchies.
???
This seems to be triggered by crossposts, because trimming groups fixes
it. But it occurs with five and sometimes even fewer newsgroups, not
solely six or more. This is another one that's quite problematic.
AIOE is getting as ridiculous for nannying rules and random, undisclosed
blocks and limitations as that troll Greg Hall complains about. Until
the last few days I didn't take any of his numerous rants seriously,
noting that AIOE was a little bit anal but work-with-able. With the
recent changes, it is no longer work-with-able in my opinion. In
particular, with one fairly long post it took me longer to send the
bloody thing than to write it. It was a perfectly legitimate post, and
well within what "old AIOE" would have accepted as regards crossposts,
followup-to, and suchlike, but it took me ages to get it to send. Over
an hour I'd estimate, with nearly all of the above messages being seen
at one time or another. One should not have to jump through hoops to
post something! Well, except maybe if you're trying to spam. I wasn't; I
was debunking a misogynist who had posted a bunch of nonsense to several
politics and women's newsgroups, which I'd argue is a public service.
Particularly annoying is that I kept having to change my IP address. I
kept getting "your userid has posted too many articles", even though
this was my SECOND POST OF THE DAY I was trying to post. I'd made one
short post successfully a few minutes earlier. Then this one kept giving
AIOE fits for no really good reason, and every third attempt or so I'd
get the "too many articles" BS. It looks like the limit-for-the-day came
up from the PRNG as 2. The basic pattern went like this: attempt the
post (441 too many articles), disconnect and reconnect, attempt the post
(quietly fails without explanation at all, or else timeout error),
attempt the post (441 some random BS such as "banned domain"), change
something, attempt the post (441 too many articles), wash, rinse,
repeat.
I consider my changing my IP to work around the ridiculous behavior
noted above as legitimate, because THIS post here will be only my FOURTH
actual post of the day once I get IT to succeed (fingers crossed now).
Far less than the "old" limit of 25. I don't consider it unethical to
work around what seems clearly to be broken behavior while remaining so
far within the limit officially set (but buggily enforced by software).
After today, I suspect I shall not be using AIOE any more, unless I hear
confirmation here that the above issues have been fixed and people can
once again use AIOE to reply to stuff without all kinds of jumping
through hoops (a followup-to: and maybe some newsgroups trimmed and away
they go).
1. That the "441 No such group" message specify the newsgroup(s) at
issue.
2. That "441 Too many hierarchies" go away entirely.
3. That "441 Multipost." correctly only consider successful posts as
potential duplicates of the submission. An unsuccessful one with
an identical body is either going to fail anyway (if the body was
the issue, e.g. too much quoted text), or, if it succeeds (because
it was a header change that fixed it), is not actually a multi-post
because it is the first post with that body to actually appear
online.
Furthermore, I *require* (on pain of not using AIOE until these are
1. That "441 Your userid has posted too many articles" only ever appears
if *at least* 25 successful posts were submitted by that "userid" in
the preceding 24 hours, or else during the current calendar day, one
or the other. I.e. that the limit be returned to its original value,
if not made an even higher one, and that it return to being, and
henceforth remain, deterministic and predictable.
2. There are no restrictions on body content, except possibly percentage
of quoted material.
--
Scheming to take over the world since 1979.

--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know proper
manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar

Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions beyond
the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday

[Aioe]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?

yes, it's your imagination

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Multipost.

that error string is cryptic.
Code is going to be changed in that point-

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

two options: a) you're using a provider that is banlisted due large abuses
or you are trying to abuse the server.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).
users can post articles only into existent groups.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or
2. At least tell me WHICH group.

this will be done this afternoon

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

RFTM
http://uribl.com/

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Too many hierarchies.
???

If an article is crossposted to more than 2 hierarchies, it's rejected.

[Aioe]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

btw this check is currently disabled

[skeeter]

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

btw this check is currently disabled

i can't post at all most times. out box had 7 messages for days.

[Son of Serpent Esq]

Post by skeeter

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

btw this check is currently disabled

i can't post at all most times. out box had 7 messages for days.

Try moving the posts in the outbox to drafts and then try a small
test post somewhere. I'm thinking maybe one of those posts in your
outbox might be causing the problem. I really have no idea on how
AIOE works except for what I read here so... just guessing. ;)

[Tony]

*Oh no it's not* all you have to do is send to a defined newsgroup that
doesn't exist on AOIE. There are what about 130,000 newsgroups but
nowhere on the internet does it tell you which groups don't exist on
AIOE until you send that post then it's too late and you automatically
get a 441 error Your userid has sent too many articles. You then have to
wait about half a day to post or try to use a different IP address. This
will make the poor usenet virgins at Verizon very unhappy starting
around the end of this month.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

btw this check is currently disabled

--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know
proper manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar

Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions
beyond the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?

yes, it's your imagination

How rude.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

two options: a) you're using a provider that is banlisted due large
abuses or you are trying to abuse the server.

I'm fairly sure I'm doing neither. Simply reattempting a failed post a
couple of times sufficed to cause it on the day I posted the original
post of this thread. I had made perhaps 10-12 successful posts the
previous day, and 2 the same day. That means the first attempt on that
day that failed with "441 Your userid has sent too many articles" was
after a maximum of 14, not 25, during an AIOE "day" (whether a fixed or
rolling window, and regardless of boundaries, assuming it is always 24
hours long). That to me indicates that either the limit was lowered or
the limit-enforcement mechanism screws up from time to time, perhaps
double- or triple-counting posts sometimes or simply getting overwritten
through a wild pointer.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).

How, exactly? Note I said "perhaps with the missing groups elided from
that header"; doing it that way would have the identical effect to the
user retrying with the "nonexistent" group manually removed from the
list, so if that would enable abuse, that abuse is possible already.
Note also that I did not suggest that the "nonexistent" groups not
nevertheless count towards the crosspost limit, in case you were
thinking it would let someone post to 5 groups AIOE carries and 10,000
that it doesn't or something like that.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or
2. At least tell me WHICH group.

this will be done this afternoon

That's good.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

RFTM

How rude!

You have failed to address the points I made regarding freedom of
speech, freedom of political speech, the fact that the blocked domain
must have been one of youtube, a political site, or one of the largest
cable ISPs in terms of customer base (none of which should be blocked),
or the fact that blocking posts based on specific content in the body,
besides violating the spirit of Usenet, is ineffective as an antispam
measure. (And neverminding that the filter list has obviously become
polluted with entries that are there for political, rather than spam-
blocking, reasons, much like the infamous Australian porn filter, as
noted in another thread by Dave Somebody earlier today.)

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Too many hierarchies.
???

If an article is crossposted to more than 2 hierarchies, it's
rejected.

Rationale?

[Gregory Hall]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?

yes, it's your imagination

How rude.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

two options: a) you're using a provider that is banlisted due large
abuses or you are trying to abuse the server.

I'm fairly sure I'm doing neither. Simply reattempting a failed post a
couple of times sufficed to cause it on the day I posted the original
post of this thread. I had made perhaps 10-12 successful posts the
previous day, and 2 the same day. That means the first attempt on that
day that failed with "441 Your userid has sent too many articles" was
after a maximum of 14, not 25, during an AIOE "day" (whether a fixed or
rolling window, and regardless of boundaries, assuming it is always 24
hours long). That to me indicates that either the limit was lowered or
the limit-enforcement mechanism screws up from time to time, perhaps
double- or triple-counting posts sometimes or simply getting overwritten
through a wild pointer.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).

How, exactly? Note I said "perhaps with the missing groups elided from
that header"; doing it that way would have the identical effect to the
user retrying with the "nonexistent" group manually removed from the
list, so if that would enable abuse, that abuse is possible already.
Note also that I did not suggest that the "nonexistent" groups not
nevertheless count towards the crosspost limit, in case you were
thinking it would let someone post to 5 groups AIOE carries and 10,000
that it doesn't or something like that.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or
2. At least tell me WHICH group.

this will be done this afternoon

That's good.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

RFTM

How rude!
You have failed to address the points I made regarding freedom of
speech, freedom of political speech, the fact that the blocked domain
must have been one of youtube, a political site, or one of the largest
cable ISPs in terms of customer base (none of which should be blocked),
or the fact that blocking posts based on specific content in the body,
besides violating the spirit of Usenet, is ineffective as an antispam
measure. (And neverminding that the filter list has obviously become
polluted with entries that are there for political, rather than spam-
blocking, reasons, much like the infamous Australian porn filter, as
noted in another thread by Dave Somebody earlier today.)

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Too many hierarchies.
???

If an article is crossposted to more than 2 hierarchies, it's
rejected.

Rationale?
--
Scheming to take over the world since 1979.

Arguing with these free NSP admins is generally a waste of time. In the end,
after all the excuses for their bottom line censorship fail they will resort
to the only true defense in their arsenals - "It's my server and if you
don't like it then start one of your own."

How lame! Imagine somebody giving away free ice cream. Never mind the ice
cream is the consistency of warm milk and quickly runs out of the bottom of
the cone. When you ask them what's up with that they reply, "If you don't
like the ice cream then get lost."

This is the type of ignorance and arrogance most free NSP admins have.

[Dagny Taggart]

Post by Gregory Hall

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is it my imagination, or has AIOE recently gotten a lot worse for
randomly rejecting articles with cryptic error messages?

yes, it's your imagination

How rude.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

two options: a) you're using a provider that is banlisted due large
abuses or you are trying to abuse the server.

I'm fairly sure I'm doing neither. Simply reattempting a failed post a
couple of times sufficed to cause it on the day I posted the original
post of this thread. I had made perhaps 10-12 successful posts the
previous day, and 2 the same day. That means the first attempt on that
day that failed with "441 Your userid has sent too many articles" was
after a maximum of 14, not 25, during an AIOE "day" (whether a fixed or
rolling window, and regardless of boundaries, assuming it is always 24
hours long). That to me indicates that either the limit was lowered or
the limit-enforcement mechanism screws up from time to time, perhaps
double- or triple-counting posts sometimes or simply getting overwritten
through a wild pointer.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).

How, exactly? Note I said "perhaps with the missing groups elided from
that header"; doing it that way would have the identical effect to the
user retrying with the "nonexistent" group manually removed from the
list, so if that would enable abuse, that abuse is possible already.
Note also that I did not suggest that the "nonexistent" groups not
nevertheless count towards the crosspost limit, in case you were
thinking it would let someone post to 5 groups AIOE carries and 10,000
that it doesn't or something like that.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or
2. At least tell me WHICH group.

this will be done this afternoon

That's good.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

RFTM

How rude!
You have failed to address the points I made regarding freedom of
speech, freedom of political speech, the fact that the blocked domain
must have been one of youtube, a political site, or one of the largest
cable ISPs in terms of customer base (none of which should be blocked),
or the fact that blocking posts based on specific content in the body,
besides violating the spirit of Usenet, is ineffective as an antispam
measure. (And neverminding that the filter list has obviously become
polluted with entries that are there for political, rather than spam-
blocking, reasons, much like the infamous Australian porn filter, as
noted in another thread by Dave Somebody earlier today.)

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Too many hierarchies.
???

If an article is crossposted to more than 2 hierarchies, it's rejected.

Rationale?
--
Scheming to take over the world since 1979.

Arguing with these free NSP admins is generally a waste of time. In the
end, after all the excuses for their bottom line censorship fail they will
resort to the only true defense in their arsenals - "It's my server and if
you don't like it then start one of your own."
How lame! Imagine somebody giving away free ice cream. Never mind the ice
cream is the consistency of warm milk and quickly runs out of the bottom
of the cone. When you ask them what's up with that they reply, "If you
don't like the ice cream then get lost."
This is the type of ignorance and arrogance most free NSP admins have.
--
Gregory Hall

Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Dagny Taggart

[Aioe]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe
yes, it's your imagination

How rude.

my English is poor and i tend to simplify my communications so sometimes i
seem rude. I apologize for this.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Your userid has sent too many articles.

two options: a) you're using a provider that is banlisted due large
abuses or you are trying to abuse the server.

I'm fairly sure I'm doing neither.

Currently this check is disabled till i don't find a way to reduce the amount
of false positive matches.
That check is designed to entirely block those ISPs - which are identified by
the first two tlds inside the client's rDNS - that send me more than a
(large) amount of rejected articles. Here, 'domain' mostly means ISP.
On a side, this is an efficient way to ban a small number of ISPs that don't
handle abuses or intentionally allows their users to send spam. Since they
offer *dynamic* IP addresses, the abuser connects to the internet with an IP
number assigned by the ISP, abuses my server, disconnects from internet,
reconnects again with a new IP address, makes some new abuse and so on. Just
to make an idea, yesterday - without this rule - a single /client/ of a
small Indonesian ISP has sent me about 800 rejected articles from about 40
different IP addresses, using *one* IP address per time.
On the other side, a large provider with *many* concurrent aioe.org (ie
comcast) users could exceed the maximum number of /accepted/ or /rejected/
articles only because many users post many articles at the same time. If i
increase the number of articles needed to be banned, i reduce the filter
efficiency against repetitive abuses; if i keep the current values, sometimes
someone is banned by mistake. Since the right configuration depends by the
number of total posts, their distribution in the day and their source, it's
hard to find a ready to use and always adaptable algorithm.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).

How, exactly?

1. Aioe.org doesn't carry those groups that are used by pedophiles and porn
distributors. Many of them are /binary/ groups but there're also a couple of
text only groups. If i allow people to send articles to some nonexistent
group, i make possible to send messages to groups that i don't know what
they're or i don't want to carry. Since each time that a pedophile posts a
message through aioe.org i have to spend an hour inside an interview room in
a police department, i prefer to avoid risks.

2. Since binary groups are *not* carried by aioe.org, if i allow my users to
post in those groups that aren't on the server, i simply allow them to post
messages to every binary group. This is bad. I don't want binaries on my
server and i'm probably not equipped for handling them. Binaries must be
analyzed by the server and this requires system resources; once accepted,
they must be propagated and this requires bandwidth. Cleanfeed is configured
to reject them (due security reasons) so even if a binary article goes
beyond my filter, it's still rejected by cleanfeed with a less clear error
string.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or
2. At least tell me WHICH group.

now aioe.org adds the missing group in the error string.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

RFTM

How rude!

again, i apologize. I use acrostics without impolite intents only as a way
to be quicker.

Please, read the documentation at http://www.uribl.com/

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
You have failed to address the points I made regarding freedom of
speech, freedom of political speech, the fact that the blocked domain
must have been one of youtube, a political site, or one of the largest
cable ISPs in terms of customer base (none of which should be blocked),

this sounds strange. I've make some search in my logs (last week) and i've
found no evidences that i'm blocking these sites. You can check whether a
domain is banned by URIBL using the interface at http://lookup.uribl.com/

If you have got some evidence about incorrect rejections, you should be more
accurate reporting that error. I need to know *when* your articles were
rejected and which URIs were included in the body.

I repeat: this sounds strange.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or the fact that blocking posts based on specific content in the body,
besides violating the spirit of Usenet, is ineffective as an antispam
measure.

You seem to ignore what is an URIBL. I'm not banning 'specific contents', i'm
simply banning those domains which hosts SPAM or pedophile contents.
Please, read

http://spamtrackers.eu/wiki/index.php/URIBL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SURBL (which is used by aioe.org as URIBL)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Too many hierarchies.

If an article is crossposted to more than 2 hierarchies, it's
rejected.

Rationale?

Before all, an article is rejected only if it's crossposted to more than *3*
hierarchies. Practical experience shows that those articles thar are sent to
many groups into many hierarchies are probably spam or abuses.
Do you know *four* groups in *four* hierarchies that have got the same
topic?


Again, i apologize for my past rudeness. This kind of discussions is helpful
for me (and my server).

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).

How, exactly?

1. Aioe.org doesn't carry those groups that are used by pedophiles and
porn distributors. ...

I've noticed that it doesn't carry soc.sexuality.general either, even
though that one's moderated and quite harmless. :) (And yet you do carry
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm!)

Regardless: if the server stripped the non-carried newsgroups from the
newsgroups line the post would not go to those unwanted groups. The effect
would be the same as the user getting a bounce, manually discovering which
group to remove and removing it, and retrying, except for not annoying the
user. So unless your intent is actually to annoy the user, this isn't
making much sense.

If you think that all posts to certain groups are likely abusive, you could
block posts specifically to those groups, and have the more lenient
behavior for uncarried groups that are not on that blacklist.

I find it disturbing that where you are they can subject you to a police
investigation for what a user does. Do they not have Section 230 CDA safe
harbors and DMCA safe harbors, or their equivalents, where you operate? I
thought fascism in Italy died sixty years ago; was I wrong?

Post by Aioe
2. Since binary groups are *not* carried by aioe.org, if i allow my
users to post in those groups that aren't on the server, i simply
allow them to post messages to every binary group. This is bad. I
don't want binaries on my server ...

Binaries can surely be recognized and filtered by their structure (one more
case where I'd accept blocking by body content, by the way) can they not?
Indeed, if they are not, someone could post binaries to, say, rec.arts.tv
to bypass blocks on posting to binary groups, and tell everyone to look
there for their stuff.

Post by Aioe
Cleanfeed is configured to reject them so even if a binary article
goes beyond my filter, it's still rejected by cleanfeed with a less
clear error string.

Well, that removes the rationale for item number 2 completely, I think.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
2. At least tell me WHICH group.

now aioe.org adds the missing group in the error string.

That's an improvement.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Body contains banned domain: URIBL.com

RFTM

How rude!

again, i apologize. I use acrostics without impolite intents only as a
way to be quicker.
Please, read the documentation at http://www.uribl.com/

Odd. Why does the error message claim that that is the banned domain then?

Let me guess -- you're using not just their "black" list, but also at least
one of the "grey" and "red" lists? Must be, since you're getting false
positives, or else URIBL is putting the odd item in their blacklist for
non-spammy reasons.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
You have failed to address the points I made regarding freedom of
speech, freedom of political speech, the fact that the blocked domain
must have been one of youtube, a political site, or one of the
largest cable ISPs in terms of customer base (none of which should be
blocked),

this sounds strange. I've make some search in my logs (last week) and
i've found no evidences that i'm blocking these sites. You can check
whether a domain is banned by URIBL using the interface at
http://lookup.uribl.com/
If you have got some evidence about incorrect rejections, you should
be more accurate reporting that error. I need to know *when* your
articles were rejected and which URIs were included in the body.

Unfortunately, I obviously can't mention the URIs without triggering the
block. As I noted, youtube was one of them and the phony email in my from:
was a second, but since this post succeeded the latter can't be blocked.
The third was the ISP of the guy I was replying to and is a huge cable ISP
in the US. Its name is charter. The fourth was a political site whose name
was based on the currently-sitting president's. The misogynist, racist
Republican who posted the missive I counter-flamed included it at the end
of his post, for some reason, even though that president is not Republican;
go figure.

I can post a Google Groups URL for the post I rebutted for you:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/5af08c9dfa53a588

On reviewing it, I see it also mentions wikipedia and the website of
Scientific American, and the attributions include a couple more domains,
Newsguy and another email mung.

The odd thing is, I can think of excellent reasons why each of the domains
mentioned cannot possibly be the problem domain:

* My email domain is in other posts AIOE accepted.
* The other munged email is not a logical target for blocking,
being probably unique to Karen's posts which do not appear to
be abusive (in the network-abuse sense).
* The other guy's email domain is a major ISP. Blocking it would
generate huge numbers of false positives. Ditto Newsguy: blocking
that will trash all followups to posts posted through Newsguy that
are made with attribution text set to mention message-ID, and all
followups to such followups made through other servers, etc.
* Youtube, Wikipedia, and Scientific American are likewise not
logical targets for a block.
* The political site I considered likely by a process of elimination
and the fact that when sites are snuck into blocklists that don't
really belong there it's usually for political reasons. But I tried
munging just that one (by inserting [sic] right after the typo
Newhouse made instead of just pasting the darn url) without success.
Newhouse's typo itself should even have sufficed to dodge any
hypothetical block snuck into URIBL by some hypothetical Republican
with a hypothetical axe to grind.

So, in brief, several of the domains don't exist and those that do are all
major ISPs, NSPs, or web sites, the blocking of mentions of which would
cause catastrophically massive false positives.

I find it hard to believe that any of the latter would be on URIBL's
"black" list. Hence my suspicion that maybe you used one of the others,
which would be a bad idea because their site clearly states that false
positives are likely if you use any but the "black" list.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
or the fact that blocking posts based on specific content in the
body, besides violating the spirit of Usenet, is ineffective as an
antispam measure.

You seem to ignore what is an URIBL. I'm not banning 'specific
contents', i'm simply banning those domains which hosts SPAM or
pedophile contents.

But domains mentioned in the body of a post are "specific contents". What
if someone wants to discuss such a domain, for instance to discuss how
spammy it is or similarly? And as THIS thread demonstrates, it creates a
minefield if someone has to try to work with you to identify what's causing
a false positive in your filters, while still subject to those same
filters. You've actually made my point for me, by pointing out earlier that
it's hard for you to know what's going on if I don't identify all of the
domains by name.

Regardless, spammers can easily evade this filter by changing domains. To
do that very cheaply they just have to use a registrar that allows domain
"kiting" or trials, where they can use a domain free for five days or
whatever. They generate a new domain every few days and replace it when the
trial period expires or the domain lands in URIBL, whichever happens first.
Now maybe it lands in the URIBL "red" list straightaway, but if you use
that list you get false positives when anyone tries to use AIOE to discuss
a new web site that just launched. If you don't, the spam gets past the
URIBL filter. Either case represents a failure of some sort. The "black"
list is the only one *arguably* safe to use for post filtering but will
respond too slowly.

And if the spammers want google juice, repeat visitors, etc., the temporary
domains can just host redirects to their *real* site.

As mentioned, they can also use popular sites that allow posting of
comments, or even use Google Groups, to post trampoline links and then link
to those from usenet posts, and URIBL-at-AIOE can't do a thing about that
without causing massive false positives again. Indeed, such sites will
never land on the "red" OR "black" lists and are likely to be on the WHITE
list at URIBL.

Or they can make an ad in the form of YouTube video, upload it there, and
spread the link around.

Or ... well, you get the picture.

The URIBL block is onerous and prone to false positives, and it's easily
worked around by spammers. It's like a drug with serious side effects that
occur relatively frequently and that turns out to be only weakly effective.
It's like Vioxx.

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Too many hierarchies.

If an article is crossposted to more than 2 hierarchies, it's rejected.

Rationale?

Before all, an article is rejected only if it's crossposted to more
than *3* hierarchies. Practical experience shows that those articles
thar are sent to many groups into many hierarchies are probably spam
or abuses. Do you know *four* groups in *four* hierarchies that have
got the same topic?

rec.sports.tennis
alt.tennis
alt.sports.sanjose.tennis
alt.india.tennis
alt.fr.sport.tennis
it.sport.tennis
clari.sports.tennis
fr.rec.sport.tennis
tw.bbs.sports.tennis
han.rec.sports.tennis
fj.rec.sports.tennis
fido7.su.tennis

Or how about:

alt.culture.china
aus.culture.china
cn.culture
soc.culture.china

Or:

alt.culture.ukc.misc
england.culture.theatre
free.soc.culture.english
soc.culture.british
uk.culture.arts.theatre

British theatre is relevant in at least the latter four and perhaps all
five.

All of these groups, by the way, are from your server's active list; no
tricks.

[David W. Hodgins]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe
i've found no evidences that i'm blocking these sites. You can check
whether a domain is banned by URIBL using the interface at
http://lookup.uribl.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/5af08c9dfa53a588

Copying the http links from the google archive of the message
into the lookup page shows ...
buildlastingsuccess.com Listed on URIBL black

So that host has been promoted enough using spam to get
messages including it, to be blocked based on uribl.com.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:15:58 -0400, The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Aioe
i've found no evidences that i'm blocking these sites. You can check
whether a domain is banned by URIBL using the interface at
http://lookup.uribl.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.tv/msg/5af08c9dfa53a588

Copying the http links from the google archive of the message
into the lookup page shows ...
buildlastingsuccess.com Listed on URIBL black

That domain didn't appear in the post. A political campaign site with
that as a SUFFIX did.

So it looks like the problem is that it is not checking the entire
domain name for being in the list, but rather for any substring of it
being in the list. That's the source of the false positives.

Until that is fixed, any third-level domain that shares a hosting
provider with a spammer's is going to cause false positives. I don't
even want to know how many dot-co-dot-uk and dot-8m-dot-com false
positives there are right now.

The problem is admittedly a somewhat thorny one: what is a "site"? For
instance, www.google.com and foo.google.com and so on are all Google.
But it isn't always the case that the last two components of the domain
being the same means that two pages are part of the same site. Consider
project1.sourceforge.org and project2.sourceforge.org. Should those be
considered part of a single site, Sourceforge, or separate sites for
Project1 and Project2? If one of them starts spamvertising, reacting by
blocking all of Sourceforge from being discussed on Usenet would clearly
be a travesty.

Blocking only on the entire domain name and not on suffixes seems
necessary then to avoid false positives. Of course, a spammer that owns
a domain can make their own subdomains ad infinitum and these would then
have to be blocked separately.

One option would be to make two lists: exact and suffix. If a spammer
owned example.com then example.com can go in the suffix list; on the
other hand, if example.com has nonspammy subdomains, those subdomains
should go in the exact list. If there is spammy stuff at just
example.com it can also go in the exact list, and a nonspammy subdomain
foo.example.com won't be affected.

Regardless, I still disagree that it is a good idea to ban postings
mentioning specific domains, words, or phrases at all.

The incident at issue here is a case in point: someone made a non-spam
(argably trolling, but that's not for automated filtering, only spamming
is) post and someone else replied and the reply triggered the filter.
That's a false positive any way you slice it and the aim should be to
have zero of these. Clearly, blocking by body content like this is
doomed to have false positives, because anyone might mention any domain
or any other thing in a non-spam post. And occasionally they actually
do.

At the very least, the filter should see if the post "looks like spam"
in other ways. For example, the post in question looks like a normal
Usenet post, with several levels of attributions and quoted text, normal
prose, and a valid references header. Spams are usually not replies but
no-references-header thread-starters, and spams touting a web site
normally have that URL "above the fold", i.e. within the first 20 or so
lines of text. The URL that triggered the false positive at issue here
is hundreds of lines below the fold in both the post that introduced it
and the reply that triggered AIOE's overzealous filters. So there are
two automation-accessible indicators that there was no spammy intent in
the post.

A third is that only a single post was attempted containing that URL. A
spammer would hose Usenet with dozens, if not hundreds or even
thousands, of posts containing a URL they were spamvertising, in a short
period of time. AIOE could keep track of domains seen in posts made in
the past day, say, and the number of times each was seen in that day
that was seen at least once. This would be a simple hash-map cleared
every 24 hours at some particular time, easy for a computer expert to
make. If a domain's count rose above, say, five, it would become
eligible for the URIBL filter. The consequences are:
1. False positives are much less likely. The domain must either be
getting spammed during the same day, or getting legitimate buzz.
2. There will only be a handful of additional false negatives a day,
each affecting at most five newsgroups.

This can be further improved if it's a combination of domain and
poster's first IP address octet that has to reach over five (or
whatever) before posts from such IP addresses mentioning that domain get
URIBL blocked if tha domain is on the block list.

Then, if a spammer is posting that domain a lot they'll get blocked
after a few posts, but a normal user mentioning the same domain by
chance and not using the same ISP as the spammer will still be
unaffected. Same false negatives as above, and even fewer false
negatives.

Or, AIOE could, you know, decide if a post is spam based on if very
similar posts appear to be being posted automatically a large number of
times, or similarly. A Bayesian filter would not have classified my
reply as spam; even if that domain carried a high spam-factor in the
Bayesian filter, other features of the post would have carried high non-
spam probabilities and the filter would have determined it to be legit.
The same reason a certain diamond-shaped blue pill can be mentioned by
name in a normal email and survive people's Thunderbird filters, if that
email is sufficiently normal in other respects, particularly coming from
a known sender and having lots of ordinary content.

[David W. Hodgins]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
That domain didn't appear in the post. A political campaign site with
that as a SUFFIX did.

I just took a look at the site
http://barckobama.buildlastingsuccess.com/ ...
"Everything You Need to Succeed Working from Home. It’s All Here!"

That is not what I'd call political site. I'd call it a scam site.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[David W. Hodgins]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
That domain didn't appear in the post. A political campaign site with
that as a SUFFIX did.

I just took a look at the site
hxxp://barckobama dot buildlastingsuccess dot com/ ...
"Everything You Need to Succeed Working from Home. It’s All Here!"

That is not what I'd call political site. I'd call it a scam site.

Reposting with the url corrupted to ensure the article doesn't get
blocked.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

[_***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid]

Don't re·post un·vetted links.
Para·phrase, snipping all >quoted lines, like I do.

The•Hungarian•Conspiracy ( Mr. Hungarian ? )
doesn't really work as nom·de·plume, sorry to say.

This (From Mr. Hungarian) has ·noob· written all over it, sorry to say:
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090906-1, 06/09/2009), Outbound message

Finally, Mr. Hungarian should post via one of these servers (in order):

Tioat.NET:8119 ―― no login required; cost·free and well·run
Homer.Glorb.COM:80 ―― nominal fee, 10 dollars per year, well·run
News.Shared-Secrets.COM:80 ―― to get an account, talk to Robb
Reader80.Eternal-September.ORG:80 ―― Ray Banana's toy, he's no Hitler
································
For those just now tuning in, the heritage of this post is:
―― Oldest ancestor first ――
The Hungarian Conspiracy ***@94.75.244.51
estasi·@aioe.org h80nqi$q24$***@aioe.org
The Hungarian Conspiracy ***@94.75.244.51
David W. Hodgins ***@hodgins.homeip.net
The Hungarian Conspiracy ***@94.75.244.51
David W. Hodgins ***@hodgins.homeip.net
Alt.Free.Newsservers
operaMail, Eternal-September.ORG, utf-8, Linux, Sep 6, 2009
Re: Ludicrous AIOE error messages

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Aioe <***@aioe.org> wrote in alt.free.newsservers:
[snip]

There seems to be a new problem, a bug of some kind with the "nonexistent
group" change.

Now if I get e.g. "441 Nonexistent group: alt.tv.defying-gravity" and
remove this group and resubmit the post I invariably get "441 Your userid
has sent too many articles", even if it's only my third post of the day,
and have to hang up and redial to make a successful post.

Apparently the modification to add to the first message the name of the
group the server doesn't like somehow has the inadvertent side effect of
maxing out the poster's IP's how-many-posts-they've-made-today counter! I
don't see why this would occur unless you were using spaghetti code. I
guess a big code clean-up is in order to among other things clearly
separate different things.

The other possibility would be a wild pointer of some sort. Cleaning up the
code might also reveal possible array over-runs or similar errors.

[Aioe]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Now if I get e.g. "441 Nonexistent group: alt.tv.defying-gravity" and
remove this group and resubmit the post I invariably get "441 Your userid
has sent too many articles", even if it's only my third post of the day,
and have to hang up and redial to make a successful post.

you can post 25 messages per day, 10 messages in 10 minutes, maximum three
errors

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Now if I get e.g. "441 Nonexistent group: alt.tv.defying-gravity" and
remove this group and resubmit the post I invariably get "441 Your
userid has sent too many articles", even if it's only my third post
of the day, and have to hang up and redial to make a successful post.

you can post 25 messages per day, 10 messages in 10 minutes, maximum
three errors

What do you mean "maximum three errors"?

First of all, errors are not generally the user's fault -- I get 441
Nonexistent group not from typing random crap into the newsgroups line
but from replying to crossposts that, unbeknownst to me, include groups
aioe doesn't carry. (For some reason, alt.tv.defying-gravity is the
commonest culprit right now. Either a lot of people in rec.arts.tv are
posting to a nonexistent group, or aioe is refusing to carry a popular
group; both possibilities seem a bit strange.) So punishing users for
errors seems unreasonable.

Second of all, this maximum is during what period of time? Or is it in a
row? (And then what, that user is locked out for a while?)

And thirdly, it apparently is now one rather than three due to some bug.

I suggest getting rid of the limit on errors entirely. Errors don't
usually mean attempted abuse (and when they do, the attempted abuse is
likely to keep failing anyway because of whatever else is wrong with
it). The only time a limit on errors even comes into play is when
several errors are followed by a success. That will tend not to occur
from an obstinate bot trying repeatedly to post something to too many
groups or whatever, but from a human being making an honest effort to
fix whatever problem there was with their post.

Put another way, how can "this was the fourth attempt to post this
post" itself be an error condition?

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Put another way, how can "this was the fourth attempt to post this
post" itself be an error condition?

By exceeding his error limit -> "Maximum three errors".

You botch one post, errornum=1. Rinse-Repeat-Twice. Yer day is done.


--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Put another way, how can "this was the fourth attempt to post this
post" itself be an error condition?

By exceeding his error limit -> "Maximum three errors".

Circular argument. Invalid.

I am asking for the justification for this. It can't very well be its own
justification.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
I am asking for the justification for this.

Good luck with the search, seeker.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
It can't very well be its own justification.

Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

hth's


--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
It can't very well be its own justification.

Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate purpose; therefore
it cannot be accepted.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

I have done all that I can, by calling attention to the problem here where
the one that can directly deal with it sometimes reads posts.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

I have done all that I can, by calling attention to the problem here where
the one that can directly deal with it sometimes reads posts.

Then you'd agree that this thread had reached it's logical conclusion.
I'll leave you to deal with the wet-spot.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

I have done all that I can, by calling attention to the problem here
where the one that can directly deal with it sometimes reads posts.

Then you'd agree that this thread had reached it's logical conclusion.

Then you won't post any further followups.

Post by Robb
I'll leave you to deal with the wet-spot.

Does not compute.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

I have done all that I can, by calling attention to the problem here
where the one that can directly deal with it sometimes reads posts.

Then you'd agree that this thread had reached it's logical conclusion.

Then you won't post any further followups.

In the fullness of time, no one shall.

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
I'll leave you to deal with the wet-spot.

Does not compute.

Think "low-tech semi-liquid extraction".

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

I have done all that I can, by calling attention to the problem here
where the one that can directly deal with it sometimes reads posts.

Then you'd agree that this thread had reached it's logical
conclusion.

Then you won't post any further followups.

I[rest of post deleted unread]

Everyone take note: Robb is a liar.

[Ray Banana]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Everyone take note: Robb is a liar.

How rude, Seamus.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Everyone take note: Robb is a liar.

How rude, Seamus.

Is this a misplaced post? Robb said he'd said the last word on the subject,
then made a liar of himself; all I did was point that out; and my name
isn't Seamus.

[Ray Banana]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Ray Banana

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Everyone take note: Robb is a liar.

How rude, Seamus.

Is this a misplaced post? Robb said he'd said the last word on the subject,
then made a liar of himself; all I did was point that out; and my name
isn't Seamus.

I know, Seamus. And it isn't David, either, and it's McClearly not Bill.
And we all know you're not a Vietnam veteran, you're just a lisztless
Hungarian Rhapsody.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Ray Banana

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Everyone take note: Robb is a liar.

How rude, Seamus.

Is this a misplaced post? Robb said he'd said the last word on the
subject, then made a liar of himself; all I did was point that out;
and my name isn't Seamus.

I know, Seamus.

Eh? If you know, why are you continuing to use the wrong name?

Post by Ray Banana
And it isn't David, either

True enough.

Post by Ray Banana
and it's McClearly

No, it's not.

It's none of your beeswax is what it is.

[rest of nonsense deleted]

Will someone please tell the Motz admin that someone's forging posts in
his name and trying to make him look like some kind of a nut?

What IS it with this newsgroup and post-forgeries anyway? Every other
thread is someone complaining about forgeries it seems.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
What IS it with this newsgroup and post-forgeries anyway? Every other
thread is someone complaining about forgeries it seems.

It's a vast middle-finger conspiracy of free Usenet admin's out to
"git" you. Only you. Then the rest. One at a time.

One thread to rule them all,
One thread to find them,
One thread to bring them all, and in the darkness
Bind them.
To the Land of Usenet where Grey Goatheaded Trolls live.

<meow>

--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
What IS it with this newsgroup and post-forgeries anyway? Every other
thread is someone complaining about forgeries it seems.

[Robb demonstrates himself to be a paranoid lunatic]

Thought so.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Thought so.

Slowly, ever so slowly, you ran away like a raped ape. Now you're
back. Are you offering up sloppy seconds?

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Thought so.

Slowly, ever so slowly, you ran away like a raped ape.

Liar. I have never done, or been, anything of the sort.

Furthermore, this nonsense is clearly off-topic in this newsgroup.

Go away.

[Robb]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is this a misplaced post? Robb said he'd said the last word on the subject,
then made a liar of himself; all I did was point that out; and my name
isn't Seamus.

LOL~! You're too confussled to be running or take part in a conspiracy.

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Is this a misplaced post? Robb said he'd said the last word on the
subject, then made a liar of himself; all I did was point that out;
and my name isn't Seamus.

[insult deleted]

Who asked you?

[_***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid]

My name isn't Seamus MacRae.

[Ray Banana]

Post by _***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid
?
My name isn't Seamus MacRae.

Liar.

[_***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid]

Check my IP address,
I'm in Seattle, on dail·up, NoCharge.COM.

Does that match Seamus MacRae ? I doubt it.

[Son of Serpent Esq]

Post by _***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid
My name isn't Seamus MacRae.

We know! Your name is Sushi McKimchee.

[_***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid]

My name is... My name is... My name is ←↑→↓↔↕↖↗↘↙ Slim Shady.

[DAB]

Post by Son of Serpent Esq

Post by _***@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid
?
My name isn't Seamus MacRae.

We know! Your name is Sushi McKimchee.

Kimchee is the nastiest stuff I ever ate....steamed pork dumplings are good
though.

[Robb]

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy

Post by Robb
Lacking other enlightenment, accepting things as they are is
the available option.

It causes problems and serves no identifiable legitimate
purpose; therefore it cannot be accepted.

Then put it out of it's misery..

I have done all that I can, by calling attention to the problem here
where the one that can directly deal with it sometimes reads posts.

Then you'd agree that this thread had reached it's logical
conclusion.

Then you won't post any further followups.[*]

I[rest of post deleted unread]

Do you really expect anyone to believe you deleted one of two lines *unread*.

Everyone take note: [bullshit read and deleted]

Message-ID: <***@94.75.244.51>

Read your original statement there, or quoted above[*], doofus.


--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

[The Hungarian Conspiracy]

Post by Robb
Then you'd agree that this thread had reached it's logical
conclusion.

Then you won't post any further followups.[*]

I[rest of post deleted unread]

[says I'm a liar]

I am not.

[VanguardLH]

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Now if I get e.g. "441 Nonexistent group: alt.tv.defying-gravity" and
remove this group and resubmit the post I invariably get "441 Your userid
has sent too many articles", even if it's only my third post of the day,
and have to hang up and redial to make a successful post.

you can post 25 messages per day, 10 messages in 10 minutes, maximum three
errors

Could you please add those last two quota limits to your home page.

[VanguardLH]

Post by VanguardLH

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
Now if I get e.g. "441 Nonexistent group: alt.tv.defying-gravity" and
remove this group and resubmit the post I invariably get "441 Your userid
has sent too many articles", even if it's only my third post of the day,
and have to hang up and redial to make a successful post.

you can post 25 messages per day, 10 messages in 10 minutes, maximum three
errors

Could you please add those last two quota limits to your home page.

Oh, and mention if the 1-day lockout is measured on a calendar day
boundary or 24-hours from when the lockout was initiated.

When a user posts an article that gets rejected and retries sending that
article but gets another error about duplicate posts (which meant the
first error was bogus), are they penalized for both errors although
their first one was not true (since it couldn't be true for the
duplication error to occur)?

[Robb]

Post by VanguardLH
When a user posts an article that gets rejected and retries sending that
article but gets another error about duplicate posts (which meant the
first error was bogus), are they penalized for both errors although
their first one was not true (since it couldn't be true for the
duplication error to occur)?

Some AIOE users are trying to turn posters responsibilities into news
server responsibilities. Use AIOE as a "server of last resort", that
message been posted here many, many times. The admin of AIOE must protect
the news server, in the process of doing that it will always need to step
on some posts. Work with it, so it can work for you.

The (quoted) text above has an md5 of 95be62db0a1990014f84782399c671b1, if
you posted that, and it fails because of a detected "bad" URL, let's expect
a rejection. Then if it's reposted without the URL it should go, but on the
next attempt a "group check" causes a second rejection. The article is walking
the filter chain and the end users don't know, except by description, what the
filters are. There's only one more chance to post it the same day thru AIOE,
the poster is in a "fix it or die" situation.

I'm not sure when an AIOE day starts, someone using AIOE might find out. Try
posting a spammy article found on another server into the same group until you
get three failures. Then try once an hour to post an ORIGINAL text only article
to a different group, the hour it's accepted by the server would be close to the
daily "reset". If the server is storing a hash of the article,the text should
be modified before retries.. also if the time the test begins is too close to
the servers "day", someone could be up all night.

.. may work, or you could devise a different method.


--
Robb | Shared Secrets Usenet

[Robb]

Post by Robb
The (quoted) text above has an md5 of 95be62db0a1990014f84782399c671b1, if
you posted that, and it fails because of a detected "bad" URL, let's expect
a rejection.

Should also state, "if the text is not modified" an md5 compare could reject
the article as a dupe.

[Contessina Selvaggia Serbelloni Mazzanti Viendalmare in María González Martínez Pilar Fernández de la Cuesta Gálvez Vincente Del Carmen]

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
[snip]
There seems to be a new problem, a bug of some kind with the "nonexistent
group" change.
Now if I get e.g. "441 Nonexistent group: alt.tv.defying-gravity" and
remove this group and resubmit the post I invariably get "441 Your userid
has sent too many articles", even if it's only my third post of the day,
and have to hang up and redial to make a successful post.
Apparently the modification to add to the first message the name of the
group the server doesn't like somehow has the inadvertent side effect of
maxing out the poster's IP's how-many-posts-they've-made-today counter! I
don't see why this would occur unless you were using spaghetti code.

Rotfl

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
I guess a big code clean-up is in order to among other things clearly
separate different things.
The other possibility would be a wild pointer of some sort. Cleaning up the
code might also reveal possible array over-runs or similar errors.

[Robb]

(Alphabet) wrote:

Snip

Rotfl

LMAO.

[Ray Banana]

Post by Aioe

Post by The Hungarian Conspiracy
441 Nonexistent group.
1. Accept the post if at least *some* group in the Newsgroups: line is
carried, perhaps with the missing groups elided from that header?

no, it makes possible several abuses (notably porn spam).
users can post articles only into existent groups.

From RFC1036 (current standard):

2.1.3. Newsgroups

The "Newsgroups" line specifies the newsgroup or newsgroups in which
the message belongs. Multiple newsgroups may be specified,
separated by a comma. Newsgroups specified must all be the names of
existing newsgroups, as no new newsgroups will be created by simply
posting to them.
[...]
If a message is received with a "Newsgroups" line listing some valid
newsgroups and some invalid newsgroups, a host should not remove
invalid newsgroups from the list. Instead, the invalid newsgroups
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
should be ignored.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html

[Aioe]

Post by Ray Banana
If a message is received with a "Newsgroups" line listing some valid
newsgroups and some invalid newsgroups, a host should not remove
invalid newsgroups from the list.

i don't remove them from the header, i reject the article.

[Ray Banana]

Post by Aioe

Post by Ray Banana
If a message is received with a "Newsgroups" line listing some valid
newsgroups and some invalid newsgroups, a host should not remove
invalid newsgroups from the list.

i don't remove them from the header, i reject the article.

That's why I underlined the part about *ignoring* these
newsgroups, which you chose to snip from your quote.
The RFC does *not* mention rejecting such articles.

I think this is one of the situations that should be left
to INN as it can handle them better than an additional
filter in Postfilter.

hth

[Gregory Hall]

Post by Ray Banana

Post by Aioe

Post by Ray Banana
If a message is received with a "Newsgroups" line listing some valid
newsgroups and some invalid newsgroups, a host should not remove
invalid newsgroups from the list.

i don't remove them from the header, i reject the article.

That's why I underlined the part about *ignoring* these
newsgroups, which you chose to snip from your quote.
The RFC does *not* mention rejecting such articles.
I think this is one of the situations that should be left
to INN as it can handle them better than an additional
filter in Postfilter.
hth
--
Too many ingredients in the soup, no room for a spoon
http://www.eternal-september.org

Well, just LISTEN to these two. They can be summed up in two words - anal
retentive.

[Sal Hepatica]

Post by Gregory Hall
...
Well, just LISTEN to these two. They can be summed up in two words - anal
retentive.

I agree. Being anal expressive like you is much classier.

[Sn!pe]

Post by Sal Hepatica

Post by Gregory Hall
...
Well, just LISTEN to these two. They can be summed up in two words - anal
retentive.

I agree. Being anal expressive like you is much classier.

I think our Gregory is related to this famous blower of his own trumpet:

<http://snipie.com/rau>

[Aioe]

Post by Ray Banana
I think this is one of the situations that should be left
to INN as it can handle them better than an additional
filter in Postfilter.

now that check can be disabled.

[Nomen Nescio]

Here's lame for you:

http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=35467

Gregory Hall = Cecil Warren, a rapist who brags about it.