For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?

Thanks!

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:54 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:

>For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
>posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
>on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
>so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
>figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?
>
>Thanks!

+1

A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
out how to filter on message size in Agent.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:04:42 +0100, wibble@bibble.com.invalid wrote:

> A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
> out how to filter on message size in Agent.

Help >> Index >> Expressions >> Characters Used in Expressions >> Line range

screen-shot: <http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=24_20210702.png>

> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Hamster/2.1.0.11

Or can Hamster do it?

--
Kind regards
Ralph

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:04:42 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
<wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:54 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:
>
>>For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
>>posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
>>on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
>>so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
>>figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>+1
>
>A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
>out how to filter on message size in Agent.

This method works in my 1.9x Agent.

[1,100]

Place the first number for posts over a certain number of lines that
you figure you wouldn't want to see. Put the second number for the
largest line amount the jerk is posting.

[200,6003]

"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> on Fri, 02 Jul
2021 10:04:42 +0100 typed in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent the
following:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:54 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:
>
>>For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
>>posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
>>on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
>>so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
>>figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>+1
>
>A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
>out how to filter on message size in Agent.

[x,y] will filter on number of lines. Can be global or folder
specific
I've set a global filter expression of
[6001,6003]
with the action set to "Mark Read"

Elsewhere I have the filter expression for a folder as
[1000,*]
set to Mark Read. That way, I can ignore the thousand line posts
which rarely if ever have more "signal" than noise.
--
pyotr filipivich
This Week's Panel: Us & Them - Eliminating Them.
Next Month's Panel: Having eliminated the old Them(tm)
Selecting who insufficiently Woke(tm) as to serve as the new Them(tm)

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 22:26:43 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:04:42 +0100, wibble@bibble.com.invalid wrote:
>
>> A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
>> out how to filter on message size in Agent.
>
>
>Help >> Index >> Expressions >> Characters Used in Expressions >> Line range
>
> screen-shot: <http://img4.imagetitan.com/img.php?image=24_20210702.png>
>
>
>> User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Hamster/2.1.0.11
>
>Or can Hamster do it?
Thanks Ralph

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 06:40:28 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:04:42 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
><wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:54 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:
>>
>>>For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
>>>posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
>>>on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
>>>so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
>>>figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>+1
>>
>>A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
>>out how to filter on message size in Agent.
>
>This method works in my 1.9x Agent.
>
>[1,100]
>
>Place the first number for posts over a certain number of lines that
>you figure you wouldn't want to see. Put the second number for the
>largest line amount the jerk is posting.
>
>[200,6003]
Thanks

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:47:12 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> on Fri, 02 Jul
>2021 10:04:42 +0100 typed in alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent the
>following:
>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:54 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:
>>
>>>For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
>>>posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
>>>on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
>>>so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
>>>figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>
>>+1
>>
>>A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
>>out how to filter on message size in Agent.
>
>[x,y] will filter on number of lines. Can be global or folder
>specific
>I've set a global filter expression of
> [6001,6003]
>with the action set to "Mark Read"
>
>Elsewhere I have the filter expression for a folder as
> [1000,*]
>set to Mark Read. That way, I can ignore the thousand line posts
>which rarely if ever have more "signal" than noise.
Thanks

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 19:28:43 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
<wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 06:40:28 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 10:04:42 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
>><wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:43:54 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>For some time Agent was successfully filtering out all the zero-line gibberish
>>>>posts but recently something has changed. I am now getting the latest bunch
>>>>on several groups I read, dozens per day. I expect the gibberish has changed
>>>>so that existing filters can't detect them but I don't have the smarts to
>>>>figure out exactly what that is. Can anyone offer an updated filter?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>+1
>>>
>>>A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
>>>out how to filter on message size in Agent.
>>
>>This method works in my 1.9x Agent.
>>
>>[1,100]
>>
>>Place the first number for posts over a certain number of lines that
>>you figure you wouldn't want to see. Put the second number for the
>>largest line amount the jerk is posting.
>>
>>[200,6003]
>Thanks

Just make sure you do NOT put the word 'Subject:" in the filter.

It's simply: [x,x]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 22:00:43 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:

>
>Just make sure you do NOT put the word 'Subject:" in the filter.
>
>It's simply: [x,x]
Thanks

On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 06:40:28 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:
>
>This method works in my 1.9x Agent.
>
>[1,100]
>
>Place the first number for posts over a certain number of lines that
>you figure you wouldn't want to see. Put the second number for the
>largest line amount the jerk is posting.
>
>[200,6003]

What would be the method for filtering out only those gibberish posts
that show as having zero lines (ie, "headers only") -- but still
showing everything with content of some kind?

ie, filtering out everything that is of 0 lines, but keeping the rest.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 09:38:30 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
<wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 22:00:43 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Just make sure you do NOT put the word 'Subject:" in the filter.
>>
>>It's simply: [x,x]
>Thanks

I screwed up. I didn't notice that you said some posts had zero line
content. Use this - it works in Agent 1.9x

[0.0]

Don NOT use Subject: in the filter. Use only what i show here.

I downloaded some years back of files for this group and found those
zero line content files. The filter above worked perfectly and did
not filter out any other posts.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:27:51 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 09:38:30 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
><wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 22:00:43 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Just make sure you do NOT put the word 'Subject:" in the filter.
>>>
>>>It's simply: [x,x]
>>Thanks
>
>I screwed up. I didn't notice that you said some posts had zero line
>content. Use this - it works in Agent 1.9x
>
>[0.0]
>
>Don NOT use Subject: in the filter. Use only what i show here.
>
>I downloaded some years back of files for this group and found those
>zero line content files. The filter above worked perfectly and did
>not filter out any other posts.

I don't get it. The more recent posts containing the zero line count
are from some guy named Thomas in DE land. Why didn't you just filter
on his name? Plus, the posts did have content once clicked on.

Are the zero posts you were talking about in this group or some other?
If somewhere else, which group? I'm curious.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:41:46 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:

>>
>>I downloaded some years back of files for this group and found those
>>zero line content files. The filter above worked perfectly and did
>>not filter out any other posts.
>
>I don't get it. The more recent posts containing the zero line count
>are from some guy named Thomas in DE land. Why didn't you just filter
>on his name? Plus, the posts did have content once clicked on.
>
>Are the zero posts you were talking about in this group or some other?
>If somewhere else, which group? I'm curious.

The OP on this thread mention the zero length posts.

The posts in question are in the book groups (possibly others) and
have 'random' characters in the Subject and Author fields.

Example:

Subject: nN2oOu3daxxkDhx [$/10] "???" yEnc (*/#)
From: PzC8PJLdsWAEmu9fcjGq@-CYJNP7EZw69.0T7
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2021 10:43:45 +0100
Lines: 6003

For a long time I have successfully used the filter:
{[a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9][a-z0-9]}

on Subject and/or Author with success, but as the OP stated, the
latest wave is not blocked by that filter.

Regards and thanks.

"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>The posts in question are in the book groups (possibly others) and
>have 'random' characters in the Subject and Author fields.

People discovered some time ago that Usenet makes a very good anonymous file
distribution system. Convert binary files to ascii, encrypt, then post as
multipart messages. Use a separate system for indexing what looks like random
characters in the subject and author fields. The content of those files is left
as an exercise for the reader.

--
Usenet: The world's first (and best) social network.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 08:13:49 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
<dont@bother.com> wrote:

>"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>The posts in question are in the book groups (possibly others) and
>>have 'random' characters in the Subject and Author fields.
>
>People discovered some time ago that Usenet makes a very good anonymous file
>distribution system. Convert binary files to ascii, encrypt, then post as
>multipart messages. Use a separate system for indexing what looks like random
>characters in the subject and author fields. The content of those files is left
>as an exercise for the reader.

My thanks to everyone who responded.

Using [6003,6003] mark as read has cleaned up the groups AFAICS

Cheers

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:27:51 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:

> I screwed up. I didn't notice that you said some posts had zero line
> content. Use this - it works in Agent 1.9x
>
> [0.0]
>
> Don NOT use Subject: in the filter. Use only what i show here.
>
> I downloaded some years back of files for this group and found those
> zero line content files. The filter above worked perfectly and did
> not filter out any other posts.

Just be aware that some legitimate posts appear to have zero lines
when the header is downloaded. The actual number of lines appears
only when the body is downloaded.

The [0,0] filter will also hit those legitimate posts.

--
Kind regards
Ralph

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 20:45:37 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
<wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 08:13:49 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
><dont@bother.com> wrote:
>
>>"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>The posts in question are in the book groups (possibly others) and
>>>have 'random' characters in the Subject and Author fields.
>>
>>People discovered some time ago that Usenet makes a very good anonymous file
>>distribution system. Convert binary files to ascii, encrypt, then post as
>>multipart messages. Use a separate system for indexing what looks like random
>>characters in the subject and author fields. The content of those files is left
>>as an exercise for the reader.
>
>
>My thanks to everyone who responded.
>
>Using [6003,6003] mark as read has cleaned up the groups AFAICS
>
>Cheers

A variation of my [0,0]. Good!

I went to some of those 'book' groups you mentioned and found those
zero files. The ones I found were Warez stuff filled with cracks,
keygens, etc. Bad news stuff. Even VirusTotal might not find some of
the newer generation viruses, etc. inside those things. No Anti Virus
program is totally safe. It takes them a while to catch up with the
virus writers.

I was safe when I did download some of the bodies because I was using
TimeFreeze, a sandbox utility. If I did get infected, a simple reboot
would would get rid of everything I did in that session.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 09:57:48 +1200, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 04:27:51 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:
>
>> I screwed up. I didn't notice that you said some posts had zero line
>> content. Use this - it works in Agent 1.9x
>>
>> [0.0]
>>
>> Don NOT use Subject: in the filter. Use only what i show here.
>>
>> I downloaded some years back of files for this group and found those
>> zero line content files. The filter above worked perfectly and did
>> not filter out any other posts.
>
>
>Just be aware that some legitimate posts appear to have zero lines
>when the header is downloaded. The actual number of lines appears
>only when the body is downloaded.
>
>The [0,0] filter will also hit those legitimate posts.

Yes, I did know that as I pointed out about the DE poster. He was
legitimate but had zero lines showing. At the time, I figured it was
better - safer, than not getting rid of those posts. As I found out
when I went to the book groups mentioned, it was Warez cracks, etc.,
that was in the bodies.

But Wibble got lucky in that the posts he's contending with now have a
repeatable line number of 6003 for a line length. The [0,0] type
filter worked perfectly when that number was used in it.

On to the next problem, but unlike you who knows what the hey he's
doing, ignoramuses like me have to get lucky once in a while. : o)

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 20:45:37 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
<wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 08:13:49 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
><dont@bother.com> wrote:
>
>>"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>The posts in question are in the book groups (possibly others) and
>>>have 'random' characters in the Subject and Author fields.
>>
>>People discovered some time ago that Usenet makes a very good anonymous file
>>distribution system. Convert binary files to ascii, encrypt, then post as
>>multipart messages. Use a separate system for indexing what looks like random
>>characters in the subject and author fields. The content of those files is left
>>as an exercise for the reader.
>
>
>My thanks to everyone who responded.
>
>Using [6003,6003] mark as read has cleaned up the groups AFAICS
>
>Cheers

I second that. Appears to have solved the problem for me.

Thanks to all!

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 17:12:32 -0500, merle@invalid.com wrote:

>But Wibble got lucky in that the posts he's contending with now have a
>repeatable line number of 6003 for a line length. The [0,0] type
>filter worked perfectly when that number was used in it.

I'm not understanding this 6003 filter. To clarify, is it the case
that the filter

[6003,6003]

filters out ONLY the gibberish posts of that exact length, but leaves
alone everything both smaller and larger than that?

ie, leaving untouched everything else but that crap?

I tried the 6003 on a couple of the affected groups which were showing
hundreds of apparently 0-line posts, and it seemed to do nothing at
all.

However, using the [0,0] filter seems to do the trick.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 10:15:47 +0200, none@given.com wrote:

> I'm not understanding this 6003 filter. To clarify, is it the case
> that the filter
>
> [6003,6003]
>
> filters out ONLY the gibberish posts of that exact length, but leaves
> alone everything both smaller and larger than that?

It filters posts with an exact length of 6003 lines.
It was in replies to wibble's first post in this thread, where wibble wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot have exactly 6003 lines, although I haven't been able to figure
out how to filter on message size in Agent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ QUOTE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REF: <http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=162539116600>

> ie, leaving untouched everything else but that crap?
>
> I tried the 6003 on a couple of the affected groups which were showing
> hundreds of apparently 0-line posts, and it seemed to do nothing at
> all.

It filters 6003-line posts, not 0-line posts.

> However, using the [0,0] filter seems to do the trick.

That is the one to filter posts which appear to have 0 lines.
But note the caution in my previous message.

--
Kind regards
Ralph

On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 21:25:07 -0700, BorkedBorg@13of9.com wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 20:45:37 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
><wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jul 2021 08:13:49 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
>><dont@bother.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"wibble@bibble.com.invalid" <wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The posts in question are in the book groups (possibly others) and
>>>>have 'random' characters in the Subject and Author fields.
>>>
>>>People discovered some time ago that Usenet makes a very good anonymous file
>>>distribution system. Convert binary files to ascii, encrypt, then post as
>>>multipart messages. Use a separate system for indexing what looks like random
>>>characters in the subject and author fields. The content of those files is left
>>>as an exercise for the reader.
>>
>>
>>My thanks to everyone who responded.
>>
>>Using [6003,6003] mark as read has cleaned up the groups AFAICS
>>
>>Cheers
>
>
>I second that. Appears to have solved the problem for me.
>
>Thanks to all!

Update: While using both [0,0] and [6003,6003] seems to get rid of the
majority of the garbage I noticed this morning that a couple of them still
seem to slip through. Still, a couple is better than the hundreds I was
getting!

I have noticed that my [6003,6003] and [0,0] filters do not get
automatically run. I am having to used Tools, Apply Filters to
Folder.

I am sure I must be missing a setting somewhere.

Thanks

On Tue, 06 Jul 2021 18:03:17 +0100, "wibble@bibble.com.invalid"
<wibble@bibble.com.invalid> wrote:

>I have noticed that my [6003,6003] and [0,0] filters do not get
>automatically run. I am having to used Tools, Apply Filters to
>Folder.
>
>I am sure I must be missing a setting somewhere.
>
>Thanks

I find that those filters do work for the majority of those messages but
there's always a very few that slip through.

Tools/Apply filters works on these but I wish I knew why they slip through in
the first place.

I would have thought that the filter would either work all the time or not at
all.

(There I go, thinking again!)