OT: recent explosion of SPAM.
04-30-2004, 01:33 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: recent explosion of SPAM.
ditto.
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:t8vkc.32666$Np3.1184037@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> I say theory #1. My news server shows zero spam in the last few days.
>
> Steve
>
> Nathan Otis wrote:
> > I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters
set
> > up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> > most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> > nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm
the
> > only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> > to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
> >
> > My theories:
> >
> > 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> > unchallenged.
> >
> > 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> > crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
> >
> > Which is likely more correct?
> > n.
> >
> >
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Steve" <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote in message
news:t8vkc.32666$Np3.1184037@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> I say theory #1. My news server shows zero spam in the last few days.
>
> Steve
>
> Nathan Otis wrote:
> > I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters
set
> > up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> > most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> > nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm
the
> > only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> > to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
> >
> > My theories:
> >
> > 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> > unchallenged.
> >
> > 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> > crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
> >
> > Which is likely more correct?
> > n.
> >
> >
04-30-2004, 03:06 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: recent explosion of SPAM.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:42:54 -0600, "Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net>
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
04-30-2004, 03:06 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: recent explosion of SPAM.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:42:54 -0600, "Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net>
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
04-30-2004, 03:06 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: recent explosion of SPAM.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:42:54 -0600, "Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net>
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
04-30-2004, 03:06 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: OT: recent explosion of SPAM.
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:42:54 -0600, "Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net>
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
wrote:
>I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
>up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them in
>most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved, but
>nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
>only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is known
>to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
>My theories:
>
>1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
>unchallenged.
>
>2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
>crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
>Which is likely more correct?
>n.
>
I'm using qwest in Mpls and yes I'm seeing all kinds of crap on here
now that I was not seeing.
JD
2K-TJ
JD
2K-TJ
04-30-2004, 03:30 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: recent explosion of SPAM.
"Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net> wrote in message
news:1uukc.12$2L4.6231@news.uswest.net...
> I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
> up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
> only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
> My theories:
>
> 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> unchallenged.
>
> 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
> Which is likely more correct?
> n.
Both 1, 2, and:
3. There is nothing really new about lots of spam on Usenet.
Qwest used to be really bad but I have seen very little (email) spam from
them lately.
I just don't think there has been an excessive amount of Usenet spam - as
much as usual from my viewpoint.
Perhaps someone just started targeting the groups you visit a little more.
--
"What we need are a couple of good hangings" - FTC Chairman Orson Swindle,
regarding email spam
04-30-2004, 03:30 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: recent explosion of SPAM.
"Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net> wrote in message
news:1uukc.12$2L4.6231@news.uswest.net...
> I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
> up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
> only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
> My theories:
>
> 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> unchallenged.
>
> 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
> Which is likely more correct?
> n.
Both 1, 2, and:
3. There is nothing really new about lots of spam on Usenet.
Qwest used to be really bad but I have seen very little (email) spam from
them lately.
I just don't think there has been an excessive amount of Usenet spam - as
much as usual from my viewpoint.
Perhaps someone just started targeting the groups you visit a little more.
--
"What we need are a couple of good hangings" - FTC Chairman Orson Swindle,
regarding email spam
04-30-2004, 03:30 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: recent explosion of SPAM.
"Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net> wrote in message
news:1uukc.12$2L4.6231@news.uswest.net...
> I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
> up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
> only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
> My theories:
>
> 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> unchallenged.
>
> 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
> Which is likely more correct?
> n.
Both 1, 2, and:
3. There is nothing really new about lots of spam on Usenet.
Qwest used to be really bad but I have seen very little (email) spam from
them lately.
I just don't think there has been an excessive amount of Usenet spam - as
much as usual from my viewpoint.
Perhaps someone just started targeting the groups you visit a little more.
--
"What we need are a couple of good hangings" - FTC Chairman Orson Swindle,
regarding email spam
04-30-2004, 03:30 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: recent explosion of SPAM.
"Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net> wrote in message
news:1uukc.12$2L4.6231@news.uswest.net...
> I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
> up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
> only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
> My theories:
>
> 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> unchallenged.
>
> 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
> Which is likely more correct?
> n.
Both 1, 2, and:
3. There is nothing really new about lots of spam on Usenet.
Qwest used to be really bad but I have seen very little (email) spam from
them lately.
I just don't think there has been an excessive amount of Usenet spam - as
much as usual from my viewpoint.
Perhaps someone just started targeting the groups you visit a little more.
--
"What we need are a couple of good hangings" - FTC Chairman Orson Swindle,
regarding email spam
04-30-2004, 03:46 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: recent explosion of SPAM.
I get loads of spam in my email, but I never get spam on a newsgroup.
"Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net> wrote in message
news:1uukc.12$2L4.6231@news.uswest.net...
> I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
> up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
> only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
> My theories:
>
> 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> unchallenged.
>
> 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
> Which is likely more correct?
> n.
>
>
"Nathan Otis" <na@spam.smeat.net> wrote in message
news:1uukc.12$2L4.6231@news.uswest.net...
> I'm just curious if everyone else (who doesn't have their own filters set
> up) is seeing all these --- and beastiality posts? I've been seeing them
in
> most of the groups I frequent. I remember seeing a few before we moved,
but
> nothing like the MASSIVE influx I've seen in the last two days. If I'm the
> only one who has seen it, I'm fully prepared to blame Qwest (which is
known
> to blow donkeys themselves) and ignore it.
>
> My theories:
>
> 1. Qwest really really really stinks and lets these messages through,
> unchallenged.
>
> 2. Someone has just discovered how to do this, and they're spamming like
> crazy cause of the perverse high they get from it. This too, will pass.
>
> Which is likely more correct?
> n.
>
>
