The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do not
use remailers.

Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons of
bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.

I disable my filters once in a while. Each time it has gotten worse.

It seems like a ridiculous idea, but it has to come to the point where
if the honest members of the group don't filter out remailer posts,
this group will die as have most groups on Usenet.

I think this is another orchestrated attack on the remailer system.
Destroy the info source and you inhibit newcomers from participating
in the group.

One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the deluge
of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.

On 11 Mar 2023, Vic <vic@smurfing.com> posted some
news:1vikgeh84drqn.1pxkyt03et2e9.dlg@40tude.net:
>
> The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do
not
> use remailers.
>
> Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons
of
> bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.

Nothing new about that for this group.

The real problem is two recent bad actors who caused the demise of
free open usenet servers.

On 11 Mar 2023, Vic <vic@smurfing.com> posted some
news:1vikgeh84drqn.1pxkyt03et2e9.dlg@40tude.net:
>
> The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do
not
> use remailers.
>
> Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons
of
> bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.

Helps to read headers so we can find "Rudy" and "Paul" trying to
find
another free usenet service to destroy.

We can thank "Rudy" for the demise of albasani and the read only
state of
neodome.

> I disable my filters once in a while. Each time it has gotten
worse.
>
> It seems like a ridiculous idea, but it has to come to the point
where
> if the honest members of the group don't filter out remailer
posts,
> this group will die as have most groups on Usenet.

"...censor out..."

> I think this is another orchestrated attack on the remailer
system.
> Destroy the info source and you inhibit newcomers from
participating
> in the group.
>
> One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the
deluge
> of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.

Lol, torll...

On 11 Mar 2023, Vic <vic@smurfing.com> posted some
news:1vikgeh84drqn.1pxkyt03et2e9.dlg@40tude.net:

>
> The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do
not
> use remailers.
>
> Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons
of
> bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.
>
> I disable my filters once in a while. Each time it has gotten
worse.
>
> It seems like a ridiculous idea, but it has to come to the point
where
> if the honest members of the group don't filter out remailer
posts,
> this group will die as have most groups on Usenet.
>
> I think this is another orchestrated attack on the remailer
system.
> Destroy the info source and you inhibit newcomers from
participating
> in the group.
>
> One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the
deluge
> of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.

Don't whine, dude. Participate.

On 3/11/2023 10:36 AM, Vic wrote:

> One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the deluge
> of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/privacy/anon-server/faq/use/part1/

"Subject: APAS Anonymous Remailer Use [FAQ 1/8]: Overview

This is the first of eight parts of a list of frequently-asked
questions (FAQ) and their answers regarding anonymous remailer use.
The newsgroup containing the most discussion of anonymous remailers is
<alt.privacy.anon-server> (APAS). Consequently, this FAQ is the "APAS
FAQ for Remailer Users," or the APAS user FAQ."

The purpose of this group is discussion of anonymous remailers.

People post using anonymous remailers and this assclown whines about
that?

Unreal.

On 3/11/23 11:36 AM, Vic wrote:
> The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do
> not use remailers.

I still see /some/ content worth reading from anonymous remailers.

There are a couple of anonymous followups that are at least on topic.
Another one that is questionable.

> Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons of
> bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.

I've noticed that trend.

> I disable my filters once in a while. Each time it has gotten worse.

I've not yet filtered out anonymous / remailers because of what this
group is and my desire to participate in the community. I feel like
filtering the anonymous remailers is antithetical to that desire. So
I've not done so ... yet.

> It seems like a ridiculous idea, but it has to come to the point where
> if the honest members of the group don't filter out remailer posts,
> this group will die as have most groups on Usenet.

I make judicious use of ignoring threads / sub-threads. It helps.

I've got some filters in place that will mark various things as read.
That way they are there if I want to access them but they don't vie for
my attention.

> I think this is another orchestrated attack on the remailer system.
> Destroy the info source and you inhibit newcomers from participating
> in the group.

I don't know if that's the case or not.

> One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the deluge
> of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.

Like I said, some of the anonymous replies are at least on topic if not
actually constructive.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 00:16:15 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 3/11/23 11:36 AM, Vic wrote:
>> The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do
>> not use remailers.
>
> I still see /some/ content worth reading from anonymous remailers.
>
> There are a couple of anonymous followups that are at least on topic.
> Another one that is questionable.
>
>> Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons of
>> bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.
>
> I've noticed that trend.
>
>> I disable my filters once in a while. Each time it has gotten worse.
>
> I've not yet filtered out anonymous / remailers because of what this
> group is and my desire to participate in the community. I feel like
> filtering the anonymous remailers is antithetical to that desire. So
> I've not done so ... yet.
>
>> It seems like a ridiculous idea, but it has to come to the point where
>> if the honest members of the group don't filter out remailer posts,
>> this group will die as have most groups on Usenet.
>
> I make judicious use of ignoring threads / sub-threads. It helps.
>
> I've got some filters in place that will mark various things as read.
> That way they are there if I want to access them but they don't vie for
> my attention.
>
>> I think this is another orchestrated attack on the remailer system.
>> Destroy the info source and you inhibit newcomers from participating
>> in the group.
>
> I don't know if that's the case or not.
>
>> One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the deluge
>> of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.
>
> Like I said, some of the anonymous replies are at least on topic if not
> actually constructive.

You and SEC3 somehow do quite well advising questioners without having
to use the anon stuff as Author. Why couldn't others do the same? Why
does one need to hide in order to ask a question or answer one
regarding remailers?

From what I read of your reply, you are to an extent in agreement with
my post. When you say there still are some posts relative to the
subject of the group, I agree. However, many of those are angry
insults as to the mental capability of the OP to use remailers.

So, I'm going to remain filtering out the existing four exit
remailers. I just don't like looking at all those junk posts.

Thanks for answering.

On 11 Mar 2023, Vic <vic@smurfing.com> posted some
news:1oyzlzgc6zct6.1x29d9h1qddpm$.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 00:16:15 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote:
>
>> On 3/11/23 11:36 AM, Vic wrote:
>>> The only posts worth reading anymore are the few from those who do
>>> not use remailers.
>>
>> I still see /some/ content worth reading from anonymous remailers.
>>
>> There are a couple of anonymous followups that are at least on topic.
>> Another one that is questionable.
>>
>>> Somebody, some group, is determined to destroy a.p.a-s with tons of
>>> bad info or posting little more than angry. insulting posts.
>>
>> I've noticed that trend.
>>
>>> I disable my filters once in a while. Each time it has gotten worse.
>>
>> I've not yet filtered out anonymous / remailers because of what this
>> group is and my desire to participate in the community. I feel like
>> filtering the anonymous remailers is antithetical to that desire. So
>> I've not done so ... yet.
>>
>>> It seems like a ridiculous idea, but it has to come to the point where
>>> if the honest members of the group don't filter out remailer posts,
>>> this group will die as have most groups on Usenet.
>>
>> I make judicious use of ignoring threads / sub-threads. It helps.
>>
>> I've got some filters in place that will mark various things as read.
>> That way they are there if I want to access them but they don't vie for
>> my attention.
>>
>>> I think this is another orchestrated attack on the remailer system.
>>> Destroy the info source and you inhibit newcomers from participating
>>> in the group.
>>
>> I don't know if that's the case or not.
>>
>>> One last thought - my filters are back on, so I won't see the deluge
>>> of anon crap I'm sure this post will spawn.
>>
>> Like I said, some of the anonymous replies are at least on topic if not
>> actually constructive.
>
> You and SEC3 somehow do quite well advising questioners without having
> to use the anon stuff as Author. Why couldn't others do the same? Why
> does one need to hide in order to ask a question or answer one
> regarding remailers?

That kinda is the purpose of this group. You know, privacy and anonymity.

I used to post using my real name. Then I ran afoul of several stalkers
from AUK who thought it would be entertaining to forge some posts and send
them to my employer. It was funny as shit to see the tables turned on
them by Charles Novins later on.

> From what I read of your reply, you are to an extent in agreement with
> my post. When you say there still are some posts relative to the
> subject of the group, I agree. However, many of those are angry
> insults as to the mental capability of the OP to use remailers.
>
> So, I'm going to remain filtering out the existing four exit
> remailers. I just don't like looking at all those junk posts.

Then you'll miss some of the better advisory content by choice.

> Thanks for answering.

On 3/12/23 12:45 AM, Vic wrote:
> You and SEC3 somehow do quite well advising questioners without
> having to use the anon stuff as Author. Why couldn't others do the
> same? Why does one need to hide in order to ask a question or answer
> one regarding remailers?

I don't know that there is /need/ to be anonymous. But seeing as how
this group seems to be heavily weighted in anonymity and discussing
anonymity technology, I have no problem with people /wanting/ to be
anonymous.

> From what I read of your reply, you are to an extent in agreement
> with my post. When you say there still are some posts relative to
> the subject of the group, I agree. However, many of those are angry
> insults as to the mental capability of the OP to use remailers.

Ya, the vast majority of ad hominem attacks are from anonymous sources.

> So, I'm going to remain filtering out the existing four exit
> remailers. I just don't like looking at all those junk posts.

That is your choice to do.

> Thanks for answering.

You're welcome. :-)

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 3/12/23 3:34 AM, John Doe wrote:
> That kinda is the purpose of this group. You know, privacy and
> anonymity.

I think it's possible to discuss privacy and anonymity without actually
using said privacy and anonymity.

But as you say, this group is about privacy and anonymity so if there
was ever a place to use it during discussions, this is probably the most
likely / best accepted place.

That being said, I would have thought that the anon-server part of the
group name would have had more to discuss anonymous server technology
and I would have thought without as much anonymity while doing so.

> Then you'll miss some of the better advisory content by choice.

I think that the OP will also miss some of the more annoying ~>
distasteful follow up too.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 12 Mar 2023, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> posted some
news:tul3d1$t7e$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net:

> On 3/12/23 3:34 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> That kinda is the purpose of this group. You know, privacy and
>> anonymity.
>
> I think it's possible to discuss privacy and anonymity without actually
> using said privacy and anonymity.
>
> But as you say, this group is about privacy and anonymity so if there
> was ever a place to use it during discussions, this is probably the most
> likely / best accepted place.

It goes through stages of interest but some of the more knowledgeable are
here.

> That being said, I would have thought that the anon-server part of the
> group name would have had more to discuss anonymous server technology
> and I would have thought without as much anonymity while doing so.
>
>> Then you'll miss some of the better advisory content by choice.
>
> I think that the OP will also miss some of the more annoying ~>
> distasteful follow up too.

That's an unfortunate byproduct of free speech.