- A Java- / .NET-like monitor - 3 Updates
- (comp.lang.c) More musings on the spam problem... - 7 Updates
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: Nov 20 01:26PM +0100 Am 19.11.2023 um 21:08 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > I suspect that you are unfamiliar with how WaitForMultipleObjects > works... ... Absolutely not, but with WFMO you'd need a lot of semaphores or events whereas my solution needs one semaphore and you'd be limited to MAXIMUM _WAIT_OBJECTS == 64 threads which can join the barrier. And why do you think I didn't know that ? I've shown that I used that with my monitor and you even didn't have to look at the source since I've explained that I'm using WFMO multiple times. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Nov 20 12:18PM -0800 On 11/20/2023 4:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > And why do you think I didn't know that ? I've shown that I used that > with my monitor and you even didn't have to look at the source since > I've explained that I'm using WFMO multiple times. I was just thinking about the case that did not have to wait on all the events your are passing into WFMO to be in a signaled state. That old 50,000 connection test (event vs. iocp) required us to shift their positions in the array in order to get around some starvation issues... Did you read that article on MSDN as well? Iirc, its around 20 years old. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Nov 20 01:12PM -0800 On 11/18/2023 5:20 PM, Pavel wrote: > NP, Scott is correct, this was about "wait for many conditions to be met > at once" that Bonita missed on Linux for some reason I still cannot get > or relate to. It guess Bonita does not know that a predicate for a condition variable can contain many conditions. |
| Japanese Spammer Here <invalid@invalid.net>: Nov 19 11:25PM On 19/11/2023 11:23, Kenny McCormack wrote: > So, the question becomes, is there any way we can get Google to ban all > newsgroups, not just these 2? Yes just keep posting more spam using google Groups and they will ban as soon as they come to know of them. Now you can't buy your drugs anymore! Shame on you. |
| doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor): Nov 20 12:04AM In article <uje5qp$qb8g$1@paganini.bofh.team>, >Yes just keep posting more spam using google Groups and they will ban as >soon as they come to know of them. Now you can't buy your drugs anymore! >Shame on you. LOL! Still GG is banned on this node! -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 20 08:42AM +0100 On 19/11/2023 18:18, Mike Terry wrote: > hassle; once it's circulating around the system it's an order of > magnitude more effort to deal with. [Yeah, I get that Usenet SPAM is not > Google's priority!] I agree with you here. Although most of the regulars in these technical groups use proper Usenet clients, there are some who - for good or bad reasons - use GG. And it is undoubtedly the main source of new members for most groups. Really, it is absurd that Google are not fixing this issue, because it is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user interaction, and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same IP within a short time-frame. It is far too easy to automate the creation of new gmail address accounts, and that is a big source of spam, malware and other problems for all of google. If they stop the bots getting the new accounts, then a simple decades-old Bayesian filter is enough to identify these spam posts and close the account. They could also easily have limits on Usenet postings from new accounts. No posts for the first 20 minutes, then max 3 posts in the first 24 hours. Combine that with delays, limits and checks on new accounts, and the problem would be solved without bothering existing users. |
| Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com>: Nov 20 07:56AM > is not just a GG/Usenet matter. They need to make it more > time-consuming to open a new google account, involve more user > interaction, Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to set up Linux and run tin Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin. > and put limits on the numbers of new accounts from the same > IP within a short time-frame. "Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP blocks. Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under the surreptitious control of bad actors. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca NOTE: If you use Google Groups, I don't see you, unless you're whitelisted. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 20 01:33PM +0100 On 20/11/2023 08:56, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Just not so demanding of time and interaction that it becomes easier to > set up Linux and run tin > Just not that it's easier to install Linux and run tin. Why would anyone choose to run tin, unless they have been using it for the last three decades? There are many free Usenet clients available, for Windows and Linux (and I guess also for Macs). They are not particularly difficult to install or use, and no one needs to use an OS that they don't want to use. Pretty much any human who wants to use GG to access Usenet will already have a google account - extra hurdles on making new google accounts won't affect them. For the tiny proportion that need to make a new account, it should not be an issue if they have an extra step or two of captchas, SMS codes, or whatever. > "Same IP" only works against the pure amateurs who do not harness large > numbers of different IP addresses by using botnets or their own IP > blocks. The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino adverts is useless. > Before we blame everything on Google, the first step is getting > Microsoft to fix the problem that millions of Windows machines are under > the surreptitious control of bad actors. I don't blame /everything/ on Google - but this one is most certainly their fault. |
| Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com>: Nov 20 06:06PM On 20/11/2023 12:33, David Brown wrote: >> blocks. > The spammers are amateurs. Any professional spammer group would know perfectly well that flooding > technical Usenet groups with Thai casino adverts is useless. So what do you believe is "the point" of all the current spam? That's a serious question - if you believe it is hoping that someone reads a particular spam post and sees some online betting web site link and thinks "aha, I was just thinking about doing some online gambling, and as luck has it I've just come across a link. I might as well use that one!" then indeed the spammers would be worse than amateurs - they'd be idiots, and nobody would pay them for that! :) So I'll suggest another reason: the intent of the spam is to pervert the Google search weighting algorithms in an attempt to move particular sites up the rankings, aiming at an ideal outcome of appearing on the first page of a search. Individuals have been claiming to be able to do this for almost as long as search engines like Google have become financially important to buisnesses, and it seems 100% plausible to me that it can be done - of course you would need to have a good understanding of how Google rankings work [which I don't!], but then you exploit that knowledge to "trick" Google into thinking particular sites are more popular than they really are. Probably it would involve injecting document for Google to scan (Usenet articles?) containing lots of mentions of the keywords of interest in association with links of interest. It wouldn't be particularly relevant what human readers made of those documents. So an indicator of this going on might be articles consisting primarily of long lists of links to promoted websites. Like you say, who is going to actually read and absorb such a "silly" list of links? Perhaps Google ranking algorithms? (I don't know, but that's all I can think of - anyhow, such lists of links is exactly what 99% of the spam consists of...) Seems we're on the same page regarding Google needing to fix their account creation process so it is more expensive in human manpower. While there is no cost using some automated process, banning users for spamming achieves very little. I can see that Google fixing this isn't going to be instant, but there's also the route of simply identifying spam on prima facae grounds and blocking it at entry. Google don't seem to like that approach for some reason. Perhaps they see it as just escalating the spam war requiring constant investment to keep up with spammers, and Google want a zero on-going effort (on their part) solution. Regards, Mike. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Nov 20 09:01PM +0100 On 20/11/2023 19:06, Mike Terry wrote: >> perfectly well that flooding technical Usenet groups with Thai casino >> adverts is useless. > So what do you believe is "the point" of all the current spam? I really don't know. > the Google search weighting algorithms in an attempt to move particular > sites up the rankings, aiming at an ideal outcome of appearing on the > first page of a search. That would have made sense with the page ranking algorithms from the early days of search engines, but not now - mass spamming of links and adverts does not boost your ratings on google. But you could be on to something here - perhaps the spammers don't understand the page ranking systems and /think/ that it will boost them, or perhaps it still works on some less sophisticated search engines (there are many used around the world - google is not dominant everywhere). > this for almost as long as search engines like Google have become > financially important to buisnesses, and it seems 100% plausible to me > that it can be done Nah - there is no need to be able to provide any results in order to /claim/ you can boost rankings. The ones that actually work are simply buying sponsored phrases at google, and charging people more than google charges them. > Google ranking algorithms? (I don't know, but that's all I can think of > - anyhow, such lists of links is exactly what 99% of the spam consists > of...) I don't think that would actually work at all, but I can't be sure (I am not privy to the details of google's algorithms). And certainly if the spammers believe this would work (whether or not it /actually/ works), it would be a rational reason for targetting Usenet groups. However, I am still inclined to suspect that this is all either a mistake, an unintentional side-effect (with Usenet posts instead of email posts), or a spamming subcontracter scamming a spamming customer. > to like that approach for some reason. Perhaps they see it as just > escalating the spam war requiring constant investment to keep up with > spammers, and Google want a zero on-going effort (on their part) solution. Maybe google gets advertising revenue from the websites, and so doesn't mind the spam? |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment