Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #398 > unrolled thread

Firefox ESR

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Firefox ESR Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-27 23:29 -0400
    Re: Firefox ESR Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-27 23:30 -0400
      Re: Firefox ESR VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-27 23:27 -0500
        Re: Firefox ESR Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-28 07:13 +0100
          Re: Firefox ESR Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-28 07:17 +0100
          Re: Firefox ESR VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-28 02:01 -0500
            Re: Firefox ESR VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-28 02:03 -0500
            Firefox ESR Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2021-04-28 08:57 +0100
              Re: Firefox ESR Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-04-28 10:39 +0100
                Firefox ESR Dave <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2021-04-28 14:49 +0100
          Re: Firefox ESR PietB <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2021-04-28 10:00 +0200
        Re: Firefox ESR "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 18:00 +0100
          Re: Firefox ESR PietB <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2021-04-28 20:55 +0200
          Re: Firefox ESR VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-28 14:50 -0500
            Re: Firefox ESR Dave Royal<dave@dave123royal.com> - 2021-04-28 20:46 +0000
            Re: Firefox ESR "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-04-28 21:54 +0100
            Re: Firefox ESR Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-04-28 21:02 +0000
              Re: Firefox ESR VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-29 00:12 -0500
                Keywords header (was: Re: Firefox ESR) Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-04-29 17:37 +0000
                  Re: Keywords header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-05-06 05:52 -0500
                    Re: Keywords header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-05-06 06:06 -0500
                      Re: Keywords header !@!.invalid (Ï) - 2021-05-06 14:39 +0100
                      Re: Keywords header "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-05-06 15:14 +0000
                        Re: Keywords header "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2021-05-06 18:04 +0100
                        Re: Keywords header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-05-08 15:01 -0500
                          Re: Keywords header "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-05-08 21:08 +0000
                            Re: Keywords header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-05-08 16:37 -0500
                            Re: Keywords header !@!.invalid (Ï) - 2021-05-08 22:52 +0100
                    Re: Keywords header Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-05-06 17:49 +0000
                      Re: Keywords header VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-05-08 15:40 -0500
                        Re: Keywords header Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-05-09 05:58 +0000
                        Re: Keywords header Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-05-09 17:24 +0000
                    Re: Keywords header Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-05-06 18:11 +0000
                      Panix spammifying of submissions (was: Keywords header) VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-05-08 16:30 -0500
                        Re: Panix spammifying of submissions (was: Keywords header) danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2021-05-08 21:52 +0000
                        Re: Panix spammifying of submissions (was: Keywords header) Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-05-10 02:34 +0000
        Re: Firefox ESR Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-28 13:52 -0400
          Re: Firefox ESR Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-04-28 18:29 +0000
            Re: Firefox ESR Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-28 23:26 -0400
              Re: Firefox ESR Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-04-29 12:52 +0000
          Re: Firefox ESR Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-04-29 12:45 +0000
            Re: Firefox ESR "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-29 13:22 +0000
              Re: Firefox ESR Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-04-29 13:53 +0000
                Re: Firefox ESR "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-04-29 18:32 +0000
                  Re: Firefox ESR Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2021-04-29 20:31 +0000
              Re: Firefox ESR "OldbieOne" <me@here.com> - 2021-05-03 14:17 -0400
                Re: Firefox ESR PietB <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2021-05-08 16:58 +0200
                  Re: Firefox ESR "OldbieOne" <me@here.com> - 2021-05-19 10:52 -0400
                    Re: Firefox ESR Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2021-05-19 09:10 -0700
                      Re: Firefox ESR "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2021-05-19 16:35 +0000
                        Re: Firefox ESR "OldbieOne" <me@here.com> - 2021-05-19 15:16 -0400
                          Re: Firefox ESR Job Bautista <jobbautista9@aol.com> - 2021-05-20 18:35 +0800
                          Re: Firefox ESR "OldbieOne" <me@here.com> - 2021-05-25 12:32 -0400
                            Re: Firefox ESR WaltS48 <schw01@invalid.net> - 2021-05-25 15:16 -0400
            Re: Firefox ESR Miguel Tomar Nogueira <mnogueira@mail.telepac.pt> - 2021-05-09 06:18 +0000
      Re: Firefox ESR chris@here.com - 2021-04-27 23:31 -0500
        Re: Firefox ESR Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> - 2021-04-28 13:53 -0400
    Re: Firefox ESR VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2021-04-27 23:26 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#492 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> Panix has been ignored-flagged by me ever since
> they decided to spamify all posts that originate at them by appending a
> deliberately invalid signature (so clients that hide sigs won't work).
> I wasn't interested in seeing posts by users of a spamifying Usenet
> provider.
> ...
> Has Panix ceased spamifying the articles submitted to them? 
> ...

Oh, I also have a filter on foul-mouthed posters.  Several test on
headers (Subject, From, Organization, Keywords, or X-headers) with a
value containing foul words, like "fuck".  Yep, you have one:

X-US-Congress: Moronic Fucks.

Although I changed my Panix filter to no longer ignore-flag those posts
(but keep colorizing them to remind me to monitor them for a while
longer), I'm not removing my filter against inane posters.  I'll only
see your reply if I remember later to revisit the firefox and readers
newsgroups to select All Messages View to see if you replied.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#494 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> Organization: Usenet Elder

You da man, oh yes.

-- 
fold, spindle, mutilate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#496 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Oh, I also have a filter on foul-mouthed posters.  Several test on
>headers (Subject, From, Organization, Keywords, or X-headers) with a
>value containing foul words, like "fuck".  Yep, you have one:

>X-US-Congress: Moronic Fucks. . . . 

Who the fuck cares what you filter with your fucking kill file? It's
none of fucking Usenet's fucking business.

Fuck. Fucking public plonking announcements are fucking immature.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#499 — Re: Keywords header

On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 15:14:10, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote 
(my responses usually follow points raised):
>VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Oh, I also have a filter on foul-mouthed posters.  Several test on
>>headers (Subject, From, Organization, Keywords, or X-headers) with a
>>value containing foul words, like "fuck".  Yep, you have one:
>
>>X-US-Congress: Moronic Fucks. . . .
>
>Who the fuck cares what you filter with your fucking kill file? It's
>none of fucking Usenet's fucking business.
>
>Fuck. Fucking public plonking announcements are fucking immature.

It gives me great pleasure to be (actually, only appear) immature in 
this case then.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#512 — Re: Keywords header

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>Oh, I also have a filter on foul-mouthed posters.  Several test on
>>headers (Subject, From, Organization, Keywords, or X-headers) with a
>>value containing foul words, like "fuck".  Yep, you have one:
> 
>>X-US-Congress: Moronic Fucks. . . . 
> 
> Who the fuck cares what you filter with your fucking kill file? It's
> none of fucking Usenet's fucking business.
> 
> Fuck. Fucking public plonking announcements are fucking immature.

And you don't care that *I* filtered out Panix articles when Panix used
to spammify posts submitted to them, too.  You don't care about any of
my filters.  You only care about YOUR filters.  DUH!

I explained to Eli why I didn't see his article thinking it originally
was due to him using Panix, but after modifying that filter (to no
longer ignore-flag those articles) then noticed he also has foul
language in his headers.  

You really want to lower your reputation in Usenet to that of a
foul-mouthed inane peurile?  How old are you (mentally, not physically)?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#516 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>Oh, I also have a filter on foul-mouthed posters.  Several test on
>>>headers (Subject, From, Organization, Keywords, or X-headers) with a
>>>value containing foul words, like "fuck".  Yep, you have one:

>>>X-US-Congress: Moronic Fucks. . . . 

>>Who the fuck cares what you filter with your fucking kill file? It's
>>none of fucking Usenet's fucking business.

>>Fuck. Fucking public plonking announcements are fucking immature.

>And you don't care that *I* filtered out Panix articles when Panix used
>to spammify posts submitted to them, too.  You don't care about any of
>my filters.  You only care about YOUR filters.  DUH!

As it's relevant to the individual user only, public plonking
announcements really don't belong on Usenet, unless one is deliberately
being a drama queen in which case carry on.

What was Panix doing, appending an advertisment in a sigfile? I vaguely
recall that.

>I explained to Eli why I didn't see his article thinking it originally
>was due to him using Panix, but after modifying that filter (to no
>longer ignore-flag those articles) then noticed he also has foul
>language in his headers.  

>You really want to lower your reputation in Usenet to that of a
>foul-mouthed inane peurile?  How old are you (mentally, not physically)?

My reputation for unintentional subtlety still stands.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517 — Re: Keywords header

"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> What was Panix doing, appending an advertisment in a sigfile? I vaguely
> recall that.

If it had been enclosed in a proper sigblock (i.e., had a valid sigdash
line), I wouldn't have cared since my client is configured to hide sigs.
They are extremely rare to be on-topic to a thread.  Only if an invalid
sigdash line were used, like "---\n", would I see the spam sigblock
because it was within the message, not in a proper sigblock.

Not all their submissions got spammified with their invalid sigblock.
Been a long time since I first started seeing their spammy invalid
sigblock, but then I've been filtering them out for a long time, too.
I'm not sure now, but recall they might've had free trial accounts, and
those were the submissions that got spammified.  I don't keep, as
comments, evidence of posts (headers+message+sig) in the comments of my
filters.  My comment for the Panix filter is:

# Ignore posts that get spamified by Usenet providers (appended spam is
not in a proper signature), ...

That block of filters were about spammification by Usenet providers, and
invalid sigblocks was only one scheme.  Some didn't even bother to
pretend their spam was in a sigblock, and just appended it to the
article submitted to them (they modified the message).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#519 — Re: Keywords header

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: 

[...]

> >You really want to lower your reputation in Usenet to that of a
> >foul-mouthed inane peurile?  How old are you (mentally, not physically)?
> 
> My reputation for unintentional subtlety still stands.

If nothing else, an old-fashioned netiquette row in 
these end times of Usenet is quaintly entertaining. 

[xpost and fup]

-- 
fold, spindle, mutilate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#501 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
[...]

> I've see Avast users, and other anti-virus program users, that spamify
> their Usenet posts (and e-mails).  Avast does the same as did/does
> Panix: use an invalid sigdash line followed by 1, or more, lines of spam
> announcing the users employs Avast.

  FYI, AFAICT Avast does no longer generate an invalid sigdash line, but
a valid '-- ' one.

  See for example the many posts from 'Boris' (<nonegiven@att.net>) in
alt.comp.os.windows-10.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#513 — Re: Keywords header

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> I've see Avast users, and other anti-virus program users, that spamify
>> their Usenet posts (and e-mails).  Avast does the same as did/does
>> Panix: use an invalid sigdash line followed by 1, or more, lines of spam
>> announcing the users employs Avast.
> 
>   FYI, AFAICT Avast does no longer generate an invalid sigdash line, but
> a valid '-- ' one.
> 
>   See for example the many posts from 'Boris' (<nonegiven@att.net>) in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10.
> 
> [...]

Boris (there's more than one there) does *NOT* add a signature.  That's
the username I searched there, because that's the nym you mentioned.
Then I searched that newsgroup on "<nonegiven@att.net>", the e-mail
address (in the comment field) you mentioned.  That user's nym is Bill,
not Boris.

Bill does have a proper sigdash line in his posts assuming Avast added
the sigblock instead of Bill specifying it as his sig in his client
(Thunderbird) and disabling the spam sigblock in Avast AV's settings.
With the plethora of Avast-related headers, it appears Avast finally got
around to using a valid sigdash line -- after how many years of ignoring
their impoliteness?  

Of course, it is still a spam sig, but now clients that hide sigblocks
will work to eliminate Avast's spam postfix.  It is still a stupid
statement: oh yes, we all must surely believe a post is clean just
because it says so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DZbSlkFoSU

The best solution would be for Bill to configure Avast AV to *not*
postfix its spam sigblock.  It makes the poster look ignorant while
enlisting the poster as a voluntary spamming affiliate.

Those that I plonked were those that refused to stop spamming in Usenet.
Even you probably have filters against spammers.  When they refused to
reconfigure Avast (and I often gave instructions), they overly chose to
continue spamming, so I hid their posts.  They were educated, they
refused, were too lazy, or ignorant in thinking the sigblock magically
made their posts safe, they continued to spam, so those spammers also
got filtered.  They choose to spam.  

My filters don't plonk those that had invalid sigblocks that spammed
Avast.  They were spamming, they were told how to stop it, they didn't,
they continued to spam, so it was the spamming poster that got plonked,
not based on the content of their article.  There are posters that also
pretend to help with minimal or irrelevant responses just so they can
spam in their signatures.  Their intent is to spam, not to help.
Whatever the cause, I filter out spammers.

That Avast still defaults to opt-out for their sigblock still makes them
rude regarding this behavior.  They've been puking out their spam tag in
content NOT owned by them since Dec 2015, or earlier.  Nope, it isn't
about the cost of using freeware.  Their payware is also misbehaved.

Thanks for the heads up that perhaps Avast stopped using an invalid
sigdash line (although they still spammify, by default).  I never
filtered out posts based on signatures (extremely rare they are on-topic
to a discussion), especially since *valid* sigblocks are hidden, by
default, in my client.  It's those that [continue to knowingly] spam
that get hidden from my view of Usenet.

Note: If we continue this sigblock spam subthread, I'm tempted to change
the Subject again.  First was to address Eli's duplication of my
Keywords header.  Now we're into invalid sigblock spam.  Probably won't
continue this subthread since I'm not interested in others' opinion of
what constitutes spam or not.  My filters, my definition of spam, my
intolerance of spammers, my choice of how I view Usenet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#522 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes:

> The best solution would be for Bill to configure Avast AV to *not*
> postfix its spam sigblock.  It makes the poster look ignorant while
> enlisting the poster as a voluntary spamming affiliate.

...

> My filters don't plonk those that had invalid sigblocks that spammed
> Avast.  They were spamming, they were told how to stop it, they didn't,
> they continued to spam

I remember seeing suggestions that it's not the posters but their VPN
is using Avast and automatically adding those signatures to all
articles/email messages.

Just did some quick googling and it seems that there definitely is
some product called "Avast SecureLine VPN." I'm not going to bother to
check it but it seems that there is a free trial, so anyone can download
it, post to Usenet and see if any unwanted signatures will appear. I
suspect it will happen only in case of unsecured connection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#524 — Re: Keywords header

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:

[...]

> Boris (there's more than one there) does *NOT* add a signature.  That's
> the username I searched there, because that's the nym you mentioned.
> Then I searched that newsgroup on "<nonegiven@att.net>", the e-mail
> address (in the comment field) you mentioned.  That user's nym is Bill,
> not Boris.

  Yup. Sorry about that. I indeed meant 'Bill <nonegiven@att.net>'.
Probably saw too many Boris postings.

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#502 — Re: Keywords header

In news.software.readers, VanguardLH  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> Crossposted and follow-ups set.
> FollowUp-To ignored.  It is rude to yank away a conversation from other
> readers in the original newsgroup to which you posted by redirecting
> replies to elsewhere than the original location.

It's rude to post off-topic content in a group. I knew you have posted
to news.software.readers in the past, so it seemed the politer thing to
do.

>> Can I ask why? Or what you hope to get out of those keywords?
> In addition to the From header, I use both the right token of the
> Message-ID and the Keywords headers to make sure anyone that wants to
> identify me, even to plonk me, has multiple and stable headers on which
> to filter.  If they wanted to ensure their filter only targeted me, or
> they wanted to ensure a search only showed my posts, and not
> accidentally on someone else, they can test on:

Anyone wanting to plonk people should be glad to have a stable
message-id to do so. Message-IDs are in the overview headers, so are
fast to get and filter on. Even better, filterable message IDs mean
you can filter replies easily too, via References. In my case, I
autoselect responses with my qaz.wtf host in References.

Keywords is generally not in overview, you can only use it to filter
after loading all headers or the entire article. For optimization
reasons, I only filter with overview headers.

> While I can select a view that always shows all headers, that is usually
> a bunch of noise (as is often the attribution lines where posters think
> they have to add lots of duplicated info that is already available in
> the headers).  I only occasionally look at all headers, so it is
> possible that I previously missed someone just copying my Keywords
> header into their reply.

I'm having a hard time finding rn code online now, but I'm quite sure
the trn code has done that a long time, and I'm fairly sure the original
rn did it, too. The official trn source is at Sourceforge which does
not, unlike github, allow browsing of the code commit history.

>                                        It was colorized, because it
> originated from Panix.  So, I looked at the raw source of your message
> to see your Keywords header duplicated mine instead of your client
> adding its own value.  Panix has been ignored-flagged by me ever since
> they decided to spamify all posts that originate at them by appending a
> deliberately invalid signature (so clients that hide sigs won't work).
> I wasn't interested in seeing posts by users of a spamifying Usenet
> provider.

I don't believe you. Panix has never "spamif[ied] all posts". Panix
has never forced users to post with a signature nor provided a default
one for users.

Panix is one of the soundest Usenet sites around. It's home to Seth
Breidbart of "Breidbart Index", Mike Godwin of "Godwin's Law", Jesse
Sheidlower author of dictionary _The F Word_ (relevant to your profanity
concerns). Multiple moderated groups are using Panix news servers as
origins. I know comp.risks and rec.humor.oracle, and I think
soc.singles.moderated, sci.space.* and rec.radio.amateur.moderated still
are. I'm also reasonably sure Panix still runs "News Shogun" to
proactively stop spammers, even though the Usenet II experiment it was
created for has long since died:

https://www.panix.com/shogun/

Panix is also not selling itself as a "Usenet provider". Usenet is a
feature available to customers of their shell and virtual hosting
customers. The Panix list of services offered doesn't seem to mention
"Usenet", they call it "netnews". 

Elijah
------
owns the domain used in his message IDs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#515 — Panix spammifying of submissions (was: Keywords header)

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

> I don't believe you. Panix has never "spamif[ied] all posts". Panix
> has never forced users to post with a signature nor provided a default
> one for users.

Alas, I didn't add timestamps when I added filters to later see how old
they are.  Don't care if you don't believe.  I judged Panix on what I
saw, and I saw them add an invalid sigblock to spam on submissions to
their service.  That's what *I* saw, and that's why I filtered them out.
That was probably many years ago.  Perhaps back then they had a free
trial service tier, and submissions using those freebie accounts got
spammified.  Some posts got spammified by them, some didn't, so there
was some differentiating factor that triggered the spammification.

Don't care how old is a Usenet provider.  When I see it appends an
invalid sigblock that introduces spam (promoting their own service) then
it becomes a spam source.  First I colorize in my filters to alert me to
watch some behavior by a poster or provider.  After several months, I'll
decide they haven't corrected their behavior, and then add the Ignore
flag to hide those articles in my default "Hide Ignored Messages" view.
That's what happened to AIOE: colorized to monitor them for many months
after getting tired of all the trolls, malcontents, forgers, and other
bad types that were using that *un*registered free Usenet provider.  The
owner's claims of abuse terms was unenforceable since no one needed an
account there, and there was no penalty to the trolls because they had
no account to lose even if only to get nuisanced to create another free
account.  I grew weary of the same malcontents and uber-boobs at Google
Groups, so they were first to get monitored and eventually filtered out.
Years later I decided to do the same with AIOE.  

Recently I changed the AIOE filter to just colorize those posts to
monitor if it is just as bad a troll source as it was before.  I've done
the same to my old Panix filter to colorize and monitor if any spam sigs
show up that Panix postfixed to their submissions.

No, I don't create filters because I enjoy doing so, and make them up
for behavior that was never noticed.  My Panix filter exists because I
did see Panix spammifying some submissions.

I noticed some of my posts back in 2010 were not filtering out Panix
posters (I replied to Panix posters), but in 2017 I wasn't seeing your
posts through Panix.  I've been in Usenet since early 90's, had a haitus
of a few years (got way too busy at work and home construction), and
started again, I think, around 1998 (hard to remember back that far,
especially since Google destroyed their Usenet search).  Back then I
used my legal name, but way too many others had the same name, and I
wasn't interested in hiding in a crowd of same-named posters.  I went to
my gamer's nym, Vanguard, but hit a newsgroup where someone already used
that nym.  To be polite and not impinge on his Usenet identify, I added
the LH postfix.  First it was (space)LH, then .LH, then _LH, but
Google's search has always been screwed up by removing non-alphnumeric
characters from search results, so I went to VanguardLH.  

If I had timestamped my filters in their comments, I'd know when I saw
Panix started spammifying their submissions.  I haven't been using
Dialog since its creation.  Years ago I trialed many NNTP clients, and
did several re-trials hunting for an NNTP client that satisfied my
wishlist.  Dialog didn't make the cut for many trials, because it was
lacking features.  Not until I was willing to delve into scripting
(custom ones that can be added to toolbar buttons, and those that
trigger on message events and client action events) did I choose to
switch to Dialog.  There's no way to import filters into Dialog from
whatever I was using back then (Outlook Express + OE_Quotefix, MesNews,
TeraNews, Xnews, old Forte Agent freebies, etc), so all filters in
Dialog were created new when I started using it.  Again, Google Groups
sucks as a Usenet archive: when articles get older than some threshold,
the "Show original message" (to look at headers, like User-Agent) is
disabled.  No way to use GG to see which NNTP client that I used.  I
found find articles dated back to July 2014
(https://groups.google.com/g/news.software.readers/c/Ks2z3I3ADpU/m/7YvzGEi2_QcJ)
where I was asking for help on Dialog.  So, sometime in the last 7 years
of using Dialog, I encountered articles submitted through Panix that
were getting spammified with invalid sigblocks added by Panix.

My Panix anti-spam filter was defined new into Dialog sometime in the
last 7 years.  How long have you been using Panix?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#541 — Re: Panix spammifying of submissions (was: Keywords header)

In <egrgwynjjzkn$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes:

>Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

>> I don't believe you. Panix has never "spamif[ied] all posts". Panix
>> has never forced users to post with a signature nor provided a default
>> one for users.

>Alas, I didn't add timestamps when I added filters to later see how old
>they are.  Don't care if you don't believe.  I judged Panix on what I
>saw, and I saw them add an invalid sigblock to spam on submissions to
>their service.  That's what *I* saw, and that's why I filtered them out.
>That was probably many years ago.  Perhaps back then they had a free
>trial service tier, and submissions using those freebie accounts got
  ======

huh?  Double and triple huh?

With the disclosure that I also worked at Panix for a decade,
I first became a customer in the early 1990's, and at no time
in the three decades has Panix added its own sig line to posts
users make to Usenet.



-- 
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
		     dannyb@panix.com 
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#542 — Re: Panix spammifying of submissions (was: Keywords header)

In news.software.readers, VanguardLH  <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
>> I don't believe you. Panix has never "spamif[ied] all posts". Panix
>> has never forced users to post with a signature nor provided a default
>> one for users.
> Alas, I didn't add timestamps when I added filters to later see how old
> they are.  Don't care if you don't believe.

Followed by a wall of text trying to justify yourself. Are you sure
about that? 

Elijah
------
happy Panix customer for about twenty four years

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#412

On 4/28/2021 12:27 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
> Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Michael Trew wrote:
>>
>>> I'm on the firefox 78 ESR on Windows 7... any clue if this will be
>>> the last ESR for Win 7, or do you guys think they'll put another one
>>> out?
>>
>> Not so sure that I even want to upgrade with the discontinuation of
>> FTP, but I suppose I have other browsers on here.
>
> There are plenty of free FTP clients available.  Since you mentioned
> Windows, popular ones there are FileZilla and WinSCP.
>
> So, how often per year do you click on ftp:// hyperlinks in web pages?

Not often, but as John mentioned, why pull it?  Going strong for 50 
years and then cut the plug.  I'll be sorely disappointed if they 
discontinue http:// as well.  Is the security loophole that bad?  I use 
several older non-HTTPS web sites.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#414

In alt.comp.software.firefox, Michael Trew  <mt999999@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 12:27 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
>> So, how often per year do you click on ftp:// hyperlinks in web pages?
> Not often, but as John mentioned, why pull it?

Apparently the ftp code is very old (relative to the browser) and
has had a lot less work. So more room for security problems to be
overlooked until being exploited. And maintaining old code has a
cost:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1219194#c4

Five years ago they switched to only taking security fixes for FTP.

Face it, web browsers are the most highly targeted pieces of software
on a typical home user's device. Streamlining to reduce attack surface
is a win.

> Going strong for 50 years and then cut the plug.

To be fair, *web browsers* haven't existed for 50 years. Firefox pulling
support does not mean other clients won't still exist. When did Firefox
ditch Gopher? People are still using that and it's less than 50 years
old.

> I'll be sorely disappointed if they discontinue http:// as well. Is
> the security loophole that bad? I use several older non-HTTPS web
> sites.

For http there is a huge amount of code overlap with https. Most of the
difference is the verification of source site and understanding if
multiple protocols are used in the same resource. I expect that
warnings, a-la bad SSL certs, will happen some years before http itself
would be disabled. And I don't expect either this decade.

Elijah
------
is not at all privy to internal Mozilla discussion

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#420

On 4/28/2021 2:29 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> Firefox pulling
> support does not mean other clients won't still exist. When did Firefox
> ditch Gopher? People are still using that and it's less than 50 years
> old.

True, but Gopher is quite a niche thing now.  Chrome killed FTP back in 
January, and now with Firefox, that will likely direct well over 3/4 of 
the public that may have used it to not be bothered anymore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423

Michael Trew <mt999999@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 2:29 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> Firefox pulling
>> support does not mean other clients won't still exist.  When did 
>> Firefox ditch Gopher?  People are still using that and it's less 
>> than 50 years old.
> 
> True, but Gopher is quite a niche thing now.

Compared to the number of http: and https: sites on the internet, ftp 
is also "quite a niche thing" now.  It is not yet quite so "niche" as 
gopher has become, but it is well on its way there, even without 
browsers dropping in-browser support.

> Chrome killed FTP back in January, and now with Firefox, that will 
> likely direct well over 3/4 of the public that may have used it to 
> not be bothered anymore.

I'd suggest that the numbers are more like 98% of the public have never 
used it and never knew it ever existed, and the remaining 2% who know 
of it and might use it occasionally already use a proper ftp client (in 
browser ftp support has always sucked vs.  a proper ftp client).

Try a test for yourself, ask some of your friends who are just "regular 
users" if they even know what "ftp" or an "ftp site" is.  You will find 
that all but the ones whom you know to be "power users" have no idea it 
existed.  And what you'll find as well is that the group who knows 
nothing about ftp is also highly overlapped with the group who believes 
that "the web" is "the internet".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web