"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"H Ryder" writes:
|
| what does "urg" mean?

Would you believe uk.rec.gardening? Nah. Too implausible :-)


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

U R Gullible

"Malcolm" wrote in message
...

In article , K
writes

"Dave P" wrote
Has anyone had any luck filtering the nonsense posts using the agent
newsreader? It allows one to filter on subject and author; I cannot
find any other criteria to filter this/these pests out.

I am using a filter to delete all posts over 60 lines in length. This
gets
95% of them.

And guess what ... they're now all under 60 lines. Can you imagine
someone having so little to do with their life that they actually read
what people are trying to do to block posts?

During the last flooding attempt someone posted the details of how to
block the address from which they were coming. The next batch which
arrived had a slightly changed address. This certainly seems to suggest
that the poster has something personal against this particular
newsgroup.

....

Indeed. Maybe all the more reason to restrict all such discussion
to email wherever possible, something normally anathema to "public
forum" zealots, including myself.

michael adams

....


--
Malcolm

In article ,
wrote:


And guess what ... they're now all under 60 lines. Can you imagine
someone having so little to do with their life that they actually read
what people are trying to do to block posts?

Even this only occasional urgler, who has never, I think, had a row
with anyone, has a fair idea of who is responsible. One particular
person springs to mind as being unusually small-minded, petty and
spiteful.

Lazarus

I wrote:

Has anyone had any luck filtering the nonsense posts using
the agent newsreader? It allows one to filter on subject
and author; I cannot find any other criteria to filter
this/these pests out.

Thanks to Dave, Kay and Andy, etal for the replies. I ended up with an
Agent newsreader filter shown at the bottom. I'm in the U.S., the isp
is useless filtering this stuff and I want to stay with Agent as
newsreader.

Dave
I am using a filter to delete all posts over 60 lines in length. This gets
95% of them.

Kay
And guess what ... they're now all under 60 lines. Can you imagine
someone having so little to do with their life that they actually read
what people are trying to do to block posts?

Indeed, shortly after I put my filter in place many posted were to 3-4
lines.

andy
Delete [40,*]

This is the filter I put in place:

subject: * &[65,*]

This obviously has to be set for urg and not globally.

Kills everything for this group at 65 lines plus. This took care of
thousands of the nonsense posts. And as Kay mentioned, now the pest(s)
are posting with 3-4 lines. Doubt there is much that can be done about
these with Agent without killing the useful posts.

If anyone can post the url that was mentioned a while back on how/why
these are generated, I'd appreciate reading the explanation.

"Dave P" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Has anyone had any luck filtering the nonsense posts using the agent
newsreader? It allows one to filter on subject and author; I cannot
find any other criteria to filter this/these pests out.

I am using a filter to delete all posts over 60 lines in length. This gets
95% of them.

Dave

hmmmmmmmmmm......so that means you deleted me Dave (sniff sniff)
madgardener
--
"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is interesting. What they
conceal is vital. "

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
Even this only occasional urgler, who has never, I think, had a row
with anyone, has a fair idea of who is responsible. One particular
person springs to mind as being unusually small-minded, petty and
spiteful.

Visited dl - it's the first time today I have seen the same posts that
we've had had in here. So indeed - you are maybe right. The flooding
has started there too (

Lazarus Cooke writes
In article ,
wrote:


And guess what ... they're now all under 60 lines. Can you imagine
someone having so little to do with their life that they actually read
what people are trying to do to block posts?

Even this only occasional urgler, who has never, I think, had a row
with anyone, has a fair idea of who is responsible. One particular
person springs to mind as being unusually small-minded, petty and
spiteful.

Would you care to put a name to that? And present your evidence?
Otherwise consider whether non-specific allegations are particularly
helpful in returning this newsgroup to being a relaxed and helpful forum
--
Kay

On 16/3/06 12:50, in article , "madgardener"
wrote:


"Dave P" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...

Has anyone had any luck filtering the nonsense posts using the agent
newsreader? It allows one to filter on subject and author; I cannot
find any other criteria to filter this/these pests out.

I am using a filter to delete all posts over 60 lines in length. This gets
95% of them.

Dave

hmmmmmmmmmm......so that means you deleted me Dave (sniff sniff)
madgardener

Sadly, I think that's going to apply to a few of us for a while, Maddy. It's
a nuisance and a shame but if some inadequate thinks this is a good use of
their time, we'll have to combat it somehow. I get this mental pic of some
pimply, pasty-faced youth crouched over a computer thinking how 'clever'
they are. Poor thing.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote in message
news:160320061052184065%lazaruscooke@britishlibrar y.invalid...
In article ,
wrote:


And guess what ... they're now all under 60 lines. Can you imagine
someone having so little to do with their life that they actually read
what people are trying to do to block posts?

Even this only occasional urgler, who has never, I think, had a row
with anyone, has a fair idea of who is responsible. One particular
person springs to mind as being unusually small-minded, petty and
spiteful.

Lazarus

The greatest likelihood is that the person responsible for the spam
flooding this newsgroup has never contributed to this newsgroup in
any form. Precisely because this isn't the sort of newsgroup which
would attract the sort of script-kiddies and hackers who delight
in this sort of technological vandalism in the first place.
And so could explain what was going on, to everyone else.

Disillusioned gardening enthusiasts don't turn into hackers
although they might get up to other stuff - stalking people
onto other newsgroups, emails, generalised trolling etc.

But what isn't beyond question is that whoever is responsible for
this, is most likely taking great delight in reading all this
groundless - and most likely highly inaccurate speculation about
who is responsible. And the dire effect it's having on those
not using a NewsServer which will effectively screen out, or cancel
all the spam. And all the various measures they're being driven to
take, to combat it.

Those responsible are just lapping up all this speculation and
these tales of woe. This is most likely the main reason why
they do it in the first place.


michael adams

....

On 16/3/06 15:35, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:41:05 +0000, Sacha
wrote:


Sadly, I think that's going to apply to a few of us for a while, Maddy. It's
a nuisance and a shame but if some inadequate thinks this is a good use of
their time, we'll have to combat it somehow. I get this mental pic of some
pimply, pasty-faced youth crouched over a computer thinking how 'clever'
they are. Poor thing.

The late TCA, the guy who helped destroy uk.local.yorkshire was in his
seventies.

A case of arrested development, clearly. ;-) Seriously though, someone has
to be a bit sick in the head to do that kind of thing. And desperately
lonely.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
)

In article .com, La
Puce writes

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
Even this only occasional urgler, who has never, I think, had a row
with anyone, has a fair idea of who is responsible. One particular
person springs to mind as being unusually small-minded, petty and
spiteful.

Visited dl - it's the first time today I have seen the same posts that
we've had had in here. So indeed - you are maybe right. The flooding
has started there too (


I haven't seen any in there. There's the usual load of twaddle from the
brain dead kiddies - but they are "real" postings by "people" rather
than botted gibberish. (Not that the content is any better - in many
ways its worse - but that's selfish, inane anti-socials for you). I
haven't seen any flooding in dl since ah's.

--
regards andyw

In article , Janet Baraclough
writes

That's why I suggested earlier, that regular posters here should
exchange blocking tips by email only, not in public, and only with names
and addresses they know and trust.


I think that the only foolproof way that the kiddies could flood here
with no-one being able to do anything about filtering them out would be
if all the flood posts contained the senders name and addresses. Of
course, I should really have sent this by email. Now they've read this
we're doomed.

--
regards andyw

newsb wrote:
I haven't seen any in there. There's the usual load of twaddle from the
brain dead kiddies - but they are "real" postings by "people" rather
than botted gibberish.

You know - I had to look again! It's been a while. I really thought it
was the same gibberish! But you're right it is real people ...

(Not that the content is any better - in many
ways its worse - but that's selfish, inane anti-socials for you). I
haven't seen any flooding in dl since ah's.

Huh?! What about Michael Baldwin Bruce to whom many responded to and
who is now flooding and crossposting to perhaps 10 forums at once with
lots of nonsense?

And you're wrong about ah. If you take a look, there's far more
'naughty' than him though. I'm certain.

Anyway, I'm now confused. What do you exactly call flooding?

On 16/3/06 21:43, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:05:48 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

snip

The late TCA, the guy who helped destroy uk.local.yorkshire was in his
seventies.

A case of arrested development, clearly. ;-) Seriously though, someone has
to be a bit sick in the head to do that kind of thing. And desperately
lonely.

He was sick in the head.

Do you actually know that or is that your own belief/assumption? This is
idle curiosity on my part, so don't feel constrained to answer!
--
Sacha

Martin wrote in
:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:05:48 +0000, Sacha
wrote:

On 16/3/06 15:35, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:41:05 +0000, Sacha
wrote:


Sadly, I think that's going to apply to a few of us for a while,
Maddy. It's a nuisance and a shame but if some inadequate thinks this
is a good use of their time, we'll have to combat it somehow. I get
this mental pic of some pimply, pasty-faced youth crouched over a
computer thinking how 'clever' they are. Poor thing.

The late TCA, the guy who helped destroy uk.local.yorkshire was in his
seventies.

A case of arrested development, clearly. ;-) Seriously though, someone
has to be a bit sick in the head to do that kind of thing. And
desperately lonely.

He was sick in the head.

The main problem here is Janet, Sacha, Farm1, and Martin. You idiots
abuse innocent people coming into urg trying to participate and then
one day you ****ed off someone who decided to get even.

Now here's the pompous fool Sacha adding insult to injury for someone
who already has it in for this crowd by calling that person a "pimply,
pasty-faced youth crouched over a computer thinking how 'clever' they
are.." That person outsmarted you. LOL

And then Martin piping in. How "relevant" to uk.rec.gardening is this,
Martin old asshole? Not only is your discussion not relevant, you're
not relevant.

What sort of ****ing idiots are you people anyway? If I knew who it
was trolling this ng I'd send them a medal for a job well done, you
pathetic gits. You've brought it on yourselves.