Re: Forged articles - request for amnesty

Nomen Nescio wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that the forged posts are getting out of
hand and may actually be interfering with my work in this group.

I propose an amnesty - I will stop making forged posts as long as others
also stop forging posts in my name, and producing other forged posts
hoping that people will think they are due to me.

Yeah, very funny.

I want you to reflect on a reply I made to Brian in an active
thread -- maybe you already have reflected:

Many servers out there still support Path-preloading. Even servers
that don't and that are running current versions of INN can be forced
to accept Path-preloaded articles through bugs that have existed
in all INN -current and -stable snapshots going back at least four
years.

An article can be injected to Usenet that claims to have originated
from the Google news servers. When Google's infeed servers see Google's
news servers listed in the Path field, they will assume Google already
has a copy of the article and thus won't send a copy to Google's
news servers. The forged articles won't appear in the Google archives,
even though they're missing an X-No-Archive header field. This fact
is the only thing that would distinguish a real Google post from a
forged Google post; everything else can be easily masqueraded,
including the ID, email address, Message-ID, and even
NNTP-Posting-Host.

Of all the common header fields, only the forgery of Path presents a
challenge, but even assuming no servers out there are configured to
allow Path-preloading, I'm confident anyone who can read C code and
who has half a brain (apparently the former doesn't necessarily imply
the latter) can download INN source and find the means to work magic.
By choosing legitimate outfeed servers as an injection point, a
forger will effectively evade all killfiles that his victim has
evaded, unless the forger screws up the body content somehow.


In late 2006, a newsgroup was rendered completely inoperable when
a three-week flurry of forged messages from two dozen regulars
hit the newsgroup one after the other. In under two days, nobody
bothered posting. Legitimate thread attempts would be thwarted
by a flood that took them to 2,000-3,000 messages. It was all
automated and completely unkillfile-able.

Is that what you want to happen to this newsgroup? There are people
out there who actively search for groups containing high instances
of words like "troll*", "forge*", "killfile*", etc. Most of them
are your typical alt.troll idiots, but some are not. Who knows
what you could be inviting to this newsgroup...


Yours,
Han from China

--
"Only entropy comes easy." -- Anton Chekhov

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT/ History of Usenet
    ... Google Groups, among other things, is a searchable archive of posts from ... Usenet groups, it is not Usenet. ... Usenet is a free for all, newsgroups are carried on news servers spread all ...
    (misc.health.diabetes)
  • Re: Floats to chars and chars to floats
    ... >> Articles are easiest to read if each individual article can be read by ... amUsenet servers store the old posts for reference. ... CLC FAQ ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Ad hominem in stereo
    ... bases distributed through servers designated as "nntp" servers. ... Some nntp servers are slow, ... it's slow and limited to only the groups that Google wants to share. ... YOU CANNOT DELETE YOUR POSTS. ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Whats the story on changing the subject????
    ... newsgroup that exists on thousands of servers and can be accessed many ... You're on Google. ... are among many hundreds that store Usenet articles. ... provide the articles nor do you need to use Google to read and post. ...
    (alt.coffee)
  • Re: Whats annoying (re: UC)
    ... How the hell was I supposed to know this? ... >> Google groups allows me to remove my own posts. ... It removes posts from Google's servers. ...
    (rec.photo.darkroom)
Loading