There is incredible amounts of spam being posted here from
"http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com"....
Can't it be totally blocked from posting on this newsgroup?

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

Bo Berglund wrote:

> There is incredible amounts of spam being posted here from
> "http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com"....
> Can't it be totally blocked from posting on this newsgroup?

I support this suggestion. Even the non-spam posts are almost always responses
to old posts long expired from the Microsoft Servers.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

On Fri, 01 May 2009 07:45:59 -0400, David Wilkinson
<no-reply@xxxxxx> wrote:

>Bo Berglund wrote:

>> There is incredible amounts of spam being posted here from
>> "http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com"....
>> Can't it be totally blocked from posting on this newsgroup?

>
>I support this suggestion. Even the non-spam posts are almost always responses
>to old posts long expired from the Microsoft Servers.

The last week has produced scores of these stupid spams from
VirtualServerFaq. I *really* would like "someone" with power to block
them....

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

Bo Berglund wrote:

> On Fri, 01 May 2009 07:45:59 -0400, David Wilkinson
> <no-reply@xxxxxx> wrote:
>

>> Bo Berglund wrote:

>>> There is incredible amounts of spam being posted here from
>>> "http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com"....
>>> Can't it be totally blocked from posting on this newsgroup?

>> I support this suggestion. Even the non-spam posts are almost always responses
>> to old posts long expired from the Microsoft Servers.

>
> The last week has produced scores of these stupid spams from
> VirtualServerFaq. I *really* would like "someone" with power to block
> them....

I don't have power, but I'm working on it.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

On Wed, 06 May 2009 13:09:38 -0400, David Wilkinson
<no-reply@xxxxxx> wrote:

>Bo Berglund wrote:

>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 07:45:59 -0400, David Wilkinson
>> <no-reply@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>

>>> Bo Berglund wrote:
>>>> There is incredible amounts of spam being posted here from
>>>> "http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com"....
>>>> Can't it be totally blocked from posting on this newsgroup?
>>> I support this suggestion. Even the non-spam posts are almost always responses
>>> to old posts long expired from the Microsoft Servers.

>>
>> The last week has produced scores of these stupid spams from
>> VirtualServerFaq. I *really* would like "someone" with power to block
>> them....

>
>I don't have power, but I'm working on it.

The VirtualServerFaq spamming is still continuing. Yesterday I believe
it was more than 50% posts from this VirtualServerFaq spam source. On
the virtualserver ng it is worse than here.

Could we not gather enough users here to make an attempt to bring his
site down?

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

>Could we not gather enough users here to make an attempt to bring his

>site down?

That's illegal in this country, even if they are being such a
nuisance.

--
Bob Comer



On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:03:00 +0200, Bo Berglund
<boberglund@xxxxxx> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 May 2009 13:09:38 -0400, David Wilkinson
><no-reply@xxxxxx> wrote:
>

>>Bo Berglund wrote:

>>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 07:45:59 -0400, David Wilkinson
>>> <no-reply@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bo Berglund wrote:
>>>>> There is incredible amounts of spam being posted here from
>>>>> "http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com"....
>>>>> Can't it be totally blocked from posting on this newsgroup?
>>>> I support this suggestion. Even the non-spam posts are almost always responses
>>>> to old posts long expired from the Microsoft Servers.
>>>
>>> The last week has produced scores of these stupid spams from
>>> VirtualServerFaq. I *really* would like "someone" with power to block
>>> them....

>>
>>I don't have power, but I'm working on it.

>
>The VirtualServerFaq spamming is still continuing. Yesterday I believe
>it was more than 50% posts from this VirtualServerFaq spam source. On
>the virtualserver ng it is worse than here.
>
>Could we not gather enough users here to make an attempt to bring his
>site down?

"Bo Berglund" <boberglund@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u04k355de451en9gppdr1q0s67cocl1erj@xxxxxx

> The VirtualServerFaq spamming is still continuing. Yesterday I believe
> it was more than 50% posts from this VirtualServerFaq spam source. On
> the virtualserver ng it is worse than here.
>
> Could we not gather enough users here to make an attempt to bring his
> site down?

Or use a decent newsreader with a killfile facility...


--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:17:07 +0100, "Mark Rae [MVP]"
<mark@xxxxxx> wrote:

>"Bo Berglund" <boberglund@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:u04k355de451en9gppdr1q0s67cocl1erj@xxxxxx
>

>> The VirtualServerFaq spamming is still continuing. Yesterday I believe
>> it was more than 50% posts from this VirtualServerFaq spam source. On
>> the virtualserver ng it is worse than here.
>>
>> Could we not gather enough users here to make an attempt to bring his
>> site down?

>
>Or use a decent newsreader with a killfile facility...

How do we define the spam then?
These messages are coming from a lot of different senders (many of
whom are "very nice site") but the common thing is that the posts have
a footer that indicate their origin as from the VirualServerFaq
site....
I am using Forté Free Agent as newsreader. Have tested a few others
but keep coming back to Agent.

--

Bo Berglund (Sweden)

"Bo Berglund" <boberglund@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5p5p359nfptjef7gb0cgpk9kfmtp71ba37@xxxxxx

>>Or use a decent newsreader with a killfile facility...

>
> How do we define the spam then?
> These messages are coming from a lot of different senders (many of
> whom are "very nice site")

I just add the sender to the blocked senders list as they arrive - they tend
to arrive in blocks from the same sender...


--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net