|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
January 27th 19, 06:24 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
Forte Agent help
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:
[snipped further trolling] * TROLL ALERT * TROLL ALERT * TROLL ALERT * 
|
| Ads |
|
#17
January 27th 19, 06:31 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256 Ralph Fox wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote: [snipped further trolling] * TROLL ALERT * TROLL ALERT * TROLL ALERT * For saying its a shame your ISP is out of v4 addresses, and doesn't offer v6? Do you perchance have some posts crossed? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxN+P EACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooEYyAgAna/uhA6VhHvhx2qrc6G3IjrPEgRPoqtzwn8g3CkK1jZXwr3AMG81P R86 1XxNF69Ea8Lncp4BbLVcgJnqHurSYOls0bHpk7SexhpwYwXq7U gymqe1eeiMG6yx IrOp7P1BpJGlN91iI9BKhiJPgJwu+0I7YuBhaPYm+cfPkIpReA jNpxcHNVTnq/iX buAy0SJsHfPsSs/BZ/mOMSIIgA0t5Cl98xJ6b+lASD8TdRwZul8e00qokKhuIjOc uQyC83I4aEgvoxbBwa7G0YWjpFdTCiAoFBd4KcyV6ytjFu0yXf LjfWitXpwGsnom g/lYmjw0qVeRxHD8SHdrfRv850YzDA== =/Fyg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281
|
|
#18
January 28th 19, 01:55 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
Dan wrote:
Thanks to all who repled. When the IP address was digulved in a header, you could filter out unwanted posters. It was useful but not long-lived since most users get dynamically assigned IP addresses. The bind will expire but it survives its expiration as long as the endpoint hosts are still up, so an IP bind might expire after 3 days but last months if the user keeps their host powered up 24x7. Plus ISPs will often re-assign the same IP for a new bind with the same customer. However, the assignment is still dynamic (temporary), so that user will eventually get a new IP address. Some forums use IP filtering to get rid of troublemakers or for whatever criteria of netiquette the forum admins believe were abused by a poster. Alas, many don't expire their own IP blacklist, so someone else coming in with the same IP address but which is new to them (the abuser's IP assignment expired and someone else at the same ISP got the old IP) gets blacklisted but doesn't know why. When IP addresses were available in the headers, when I created a filter based on IP address then I added a comment to it that noted when I created the filter (along with a comment that I always add as to why I created the filter). After about a year if the same IP address was no longer abusive then I'd comment out the filter, and another year later with still no further abuse then I'd delete the filter. I don't delete articles. I flag them as Ignored and use a default view that hides ignore-flagged messages. Periodically I view all messages to check how my filters are doing. After all, no filter is perfect and could end up generating false positives which means tweaking the filter to be more focused. The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Filtering by IP address should only be considered a short-term method of defining a filter. After a few months, you have to check if the same abuser is still using the same IP address or someone else got it. No, I am not a trouble maker. Everyone is a troublemaker to someone else. For young'uns weaned on smartphones and addicted to texting, they can't stand my long posts. We're still humans posting here (hopefully) and we have moods. I'm not so friendly every day. Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out. Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act. Just filter them and ignore them. You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them. You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out. Just decide to filter and move on.
|
|
#19
January 28th 19, 05:42 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:31:14 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:
For saying ... your ISP ... doesn't offer v6? * DISHONEST LYING TROLL ALERT *
|
|
#21
January 28th 19, 10:07 AM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On 28/01/2019 01:55, VanguardLH wrote:
Dan wrote: Thanks to all who replied. When the IP address was divulged in a header, you could filter out unwanted posters. It was useful but not long-lived since most users get dynamically assigned IP addresses. The bind will expire but it survives its expiration as long as the endpoint hosts are still up, so an IP bind might expire after 3 days but last months if the user keeps their host powered up 24x7. Plus ISPs will often re-assign the same IP for a new bind with the same customer. However, the assignment is still dynamic (temporary), so that user will eventually get a new IP address. Some forums use IP filtering to get rid of troublemakers or for whatever criteria of netiquette the forum admins believe were abused by a poster. Alas, many don't expire their own IP blacklist, so someone else coming in with the same IP address but which is new to them (the abuser's IP assignment expired and someone else at the same ISP got the old IP) gets blacklisted but doesn't know why. When IP addresses were available in the headers, when I created a filter based on IP address then I added a comment to it that noted when I created the filter (along with a comment that I always add as to why I created the filter). After about a year if the same IP address was no longer abusive then I'd comment out the filter, and another year later with still no further abuse then I'd delete the filter. I don't delete articles. I flag them as Ignored and use a default view that hides ignore-flagged messages. Periodically I view all messages to check how my filters are doing. After all, no filter is perfect and could end up generating false positives which means tweaking the filter to be more focused. The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Thank you. Filtering by IP address should only be considered a short-term method of defining a filter. After a few months, you have to check if the same abuser is still using the same IP address or someone else got it. No, I am not a trouble maker. Everyone is a troublemaker to someone else. For young'uns weaned on smartphones and addicted to texting, they can't stand my long posts. We're still humans posting here (hopefully) and we have moods. I'm not so friendly every day. Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out. Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act. Just filter them and ignore them. You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them. You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out. Just decide to filter and move on. Good advice! :-) -- David B.
|
|
#22
January 28th 19, 12:04 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.computer.workshop
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 07:12:16 -0500, Panthera Tigris Altaica
wrote: I think that the OP is really the notorious stalker troll David B. under a new nym. David B. has been stalking and attempting to dox multiple posters, including me, for a very long time. I agree, it might be him. He has asked exactly the same thing in the past. If you are right, the STALKER will then go on to add more newsgroups to the follow ups, probably posting a reply that adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the thread like: Message-ID: //Thank you for a really *GREAT* response. :-) I have no doubt that many others reading here will benefit from digesting that information.// Even if he was not the OP, he piggy-backs to create a STALKING thread. https://web.archive.org/web/20180204...ks-stalker.php It's what he does. []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012
|
|
#23
January 28th 19, 03:22 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
In message , David B. "David
writes: On 28/01/2019 01:55, VanguardLH wrote: [] to be more focused. The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Thank you. [] Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out. Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act. Just filter them and ignore them. You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them. You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out. Just decide to filter and move on. Good advice! :-) Since you thanked VLH, I presume that filtering out a particular poster _was_ your reason for wanting to find IP address(es). [It would not have occurred to me to use that method as I am aware that a lot of ISPs reallocate from a limited pool.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The average age of a single mum in this country is 37 - Jane Rackham, RT 2016/5/28-6/3
|
|
#24
January 28th 19, 05:00 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 15:22:26 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , David B. "David writes: On 28/01/2019 01:55, VanguardLH wrote: [] to be more focused. The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Thank you. [] Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out. Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act. Just filter them and ignore them. You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them. You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out. Just decide to filter and move on. Good advice! :-) Since you thanked VLH, I presume that filtering out a particular poster _was_ your reason for wanting to find IP address(es). [It would not have occurred to me to use that method as I am aware that a lot of ISPs reallocate from a limited pool.) "reallocate from a limited pool" is still practiced by the few remaining dialup ISPs over on the left side of the pond, but the bigger cable or DSL ISPs don't really do that anymore. Technically, they do, but in practice, not so much because those ISPs offer what's called an 'always on' Internet connection. There are very limited circumstances where you can or will get assigned a different IP address. For example, I've lived in my current home since 2013 and I'm still using the same IP address they assigned back then. I lived in my previous home for 11 years and had two IP addresses during that time. When I asked, I was told that they had to split my node due to new housing construction and my old IP fell into the other half of the split.
|
|
#25
January 28th 19, 05:07 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 18:31:14 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert
wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Ralph Fox wrote: On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 11:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote: [snipped further trolling] * TROLL ALERT * TROLL ALERT * TROLL ALERT * For saying its a shame your ISP is out of v4 addresses, and doesn't offer v6? Do you perchance have some posts crossed? Apparently, you've hit on a touchy subject with Ralph. I didn't see any signs of trolling so it must simply be something that he considers off limits.
|
|
#26
January 28th 19, 05:59 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On 28/01/2019 15:22, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , David B. "David writes: On 28/01/2019 01:55, VanguardLH wrote: [] to be more focused.Â* The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Thank you. [] Â*Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out.Â* Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. Â*When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act.Â* Just filter them and ignore them.Â* You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them.Â* You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out.Â* Just decide to filter and move on. Good advice! :-) Since you thanked VLH, I presume that filtering out a particular poster _was_ your reason for wanting to find IP address(es). [It would not have occurred to me to use that method as I am aware that a lot of ISPs reallocate from a limited pool.) It was 'Dan' who asked the original question, John. ;-) However, as an 'aside', if I want to review posts in a newsgroup on the news.plugbox.com server .... if I use my real IP address - even if I trigger a change by disconnecting my Wi-Fi router and set it back to factory conditions - I'm asked for my User Name and password (I don't have either!) I am NOT asked for anything at all if I activate my VPN and look at the available groups. I can also both read and post messages. How, then, is the server-owner able to block me from the newsgroups if I don't use a VPN? -- David B.
|
|
#27
January 28th 19, 06:39 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , David B. "David writes: On 28/01/2019 01:55, VanguardLH wrote: [] to be more focused. The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Thank you. [] Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out. Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act. Just filter them and ignore them. You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them. You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out. Just decide to filter and move on. Good advice! :-) Since you thanked VLH, I presume that filtering out a particular poster _was_ your reason for wanting to find IP address(es). [It would not have occurred to me to use that method as I am aware that a lot of ISPs reallocate from a limited pool.) The "limited pool" as you term it, can be *3 million addresses*. The addresses are *not contiguous* (some of the blocks were assets in bankruptcy sales). The addresses can and are randomly assigned, by the dynamic binding of ADSL sessions to terminating equipment (backhaul) in a number of different Canadian cities. Neither Geofencing nor IP numeric filtering would particularly be surgical. You want to block by ISP in such a case, not some numeric value. You'd get the IP, nslookup it, see what ISP, block the whole ISP. That way, you "erase" the pool of 3 million non-contiguous addresses in one shot. Where I live, that's roughly equivalent to blocking about half my country. Paul
|
|
#28
January 28th 19, 06:54 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , David B. "David writes: On 28/01/2019 01:55, VanguardLH wrote: [] to be more focused. The IP filters might no longer be valid since they can be dynamically assigned and someone else got the old IP address that someone else was sourcing their unwanted messages. Thank you. [] Perhaps to illustrate why you needed IP filtering would've been to identify who you wanted to filter out. Others may have come to the same conclusion to eliminate that noise source and offer you their rules. When you decide to filter out someone, don't be childish and announce the act. Just filter them and ignore them. You filtering them out really doesn't hurt them. You aren't throwing virtual bullets at them and it makes you look immature to think they care about you filtering them out. Just decide to filter and move on. Good advice! :-) Since you thanked VLH, I presume that filtering out a particular poster _was_ your reason for wanting to find IP address(es). [It would not have occurred to me to use that method as I am aware that a lot of ISPs reallocate from a limited pool.) The "limited pool" as you term it, can be *3 million addresses*. The addresses are *not contiguous* (some of the blocks were assets in bankruptcy sales). The addresses can and are randomly assigned, by the dynamic binding of ADSL sessions to terminating equipment (backhaul) in a number of different Canadian cities. Neither Geofencing nor IP numeric filtering would particularly be surgical. You want to block by ISP in such a case, not some numeric value. You'd No, as I'd be blocking all users of that ISP. (Yes, there are semi-rogue ISPs - ones where a large proportion of their customers deserve to be blocked; but, even "respectable" ISPs have rogue customers they can't easily disconnect, since rogue is subjective. You might just find a particular user _irritating_, anyway, or just disagree with hir and decide [as I did for one user on one 'group I take] that it'd be better for all of the 'group if _I_ didn't see hir posts.) get the IP, nslookup it, see what ISP, block the whole ISP. That way, you "erase" the pool of 3 million non-contiguous addresses in one shot. Where I live, that's roughly equivalent to blocking about half my country. (-: Paul John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact. - Thomas Henry Huxley
|
|
#29
January 28th 19, 08:24 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:59:48 +0000, "David B." "David
wrote: How, then, is the server-owner able to block me from the newsgroups if I don't use a VPN? You should just start a list of places where you're *not* blocked. That would be a shorter list and much easier to maintain.
|
|
#30
January 28th 19, 08:29 PM
posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Forte Agent help
On 28/01/2019 20:24, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:59:48 +0000, "David B." "David wrote: How, then, is the server-owner able to block me from the newsgroups if I don't use a VPN? You should just start a list of places where you're *not* blocked. That would be a shorter list and much easier to maintain. There's nowhere where I cannot go! Kali tells me all I need to know. :-) -- David B.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
