Re: Keywords header

Liste des GroupesRevenir à ns readers 
Sujet : Re: Keywords header
De : V (at) *nospam* nguard.LH (VanguardLH)
Groupes : alt.comp.software.firefox news.software.readers
Organisation : Usenet Elder
Date : 06. May 2021, 12:52:32
Message-ID : <5xpuhyxthcy3.dlg@v.nguard.lh>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41
Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:

Crossposted and follow-ups set.

FollowUp-To ignored.  It is rude to yank away a conversation from other
readers in the original newsgroup to which you posted by redirecting
replies to elsewhere than the original location.

VanguardLH <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
I see you decided to steal my Keywords string.
 
It is a rn / trn feature to preserve the Keywords: in follow-ups. I
seldom examine them, since they are usually blank. Checking my post
archive I see this is not the first time you've gotten me like that.
...
 
Can I ask why? Or what you hope to get out of those keywords?

In addition to the From header, I use both the right token of the
Message-ID and the Keywords headers to make sure anyone that wants to
identify me, even to plonk me, has multiple and stable headers on which
to filter.  If they wanted to ensure their filter only targeted me, or
they wanted to ensure a search only showed my posts, and not
accidentally on someone else, they can test on:

- Path injection node
- AND From
- AND Organization
- AND Message-ID
- AND Keywords. 

Or, they could use just the From header for easy if filter definition,
too, but it's easy to catch forgers, especially since their Path
injection node won't be the same as mine (well, not for long since I use
responsive Usenet providers that can kill the forger's account very
quickly, and another reason I quit using freebie Usenet providers since
the forger would have to pay to get an account).  I give lots of
compounded targets to identify me.

  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036
  Section 2.2.9
  A few well-selected keywords identifying the message should be on this
  line.  This is used as an aid in determining if this message is
  interesting to the reader.
   
  https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322#section-3.6.5
  The "Keywords:" field contains a comma-separated list of one or more
  words or quoted-strings.
  ...
  These three fields are intended to have only human-readable content
  with information about the message.
  ...
  The "Keywords:" field contains a comma- separated list of important
  words and phrases that might be useful for the recipient.
 
I would also use the "Comments:" header to further strengthen my Usenet
identity, but my client doesn't let me add that one.  No, I'm not going
to PGP-sign my posts, because it is stupid since no one in Usenet is
going to bother doing the lookup.

While I can select a view that always shows all headers, that is usually
a bunch of noise (as is often the attribution lines where posters think
they have to add lots of duplicated info that is already available in
the headers).  I only occasionally look at all headers, so it is
possible that I previously missed someone just copying my Keywords
header into their reply.  From what I seen in many NNTP clients, they
generate their own Keywords header, if specified (non-blank), not
forward a value from what some other client specified in a parent post.
The RFC definition of the Keywords header is rather vague and very
terse.  Just didn't figure any client would not use its own value.

I don't delete any unwanted posts.  Instead my filters colorize them and
add an Ignore flag.  I use a default view of Hide Ignored Posts;
however, if I need to check my filters for false positives or someone
mentions something in an otherwise hidden post, I can just switch to the
Show All Messages view.  When I showed all messages, including the
ignore-flagged ones, I saw your post.  It was colorized, because it
originated from Panix.  So, I looked at the raw source of your message
to see your Keywords header duplicated mine instead of your client
adding its own value.  Panix has been ignored-flagged by me ever since
they decided to spamify all posts that originate at them by appending a
deliberately invalid signature (so clients that hide sigs won't work).
I wasn't interested in seeing posts by users of a spamifying Usenet
provider.

I've see Avast users, and other anti-virus program users, that spamify
their Usenet posts (and e-mails).  Avast does the same as did/does
Panix: use an invalid sigdash line followed by 1, or more, lines of spam
announcing the users employs Avast.  The default config in Avast is to
add the invalid sigblock.  I'll alert such users that they are spamming
their choice of anti-virus software, and to turn it off.  If they
continue to refuse, and because they choose to be spamming affiliates,
they'll get kill filed.  I did the same to Panix when they were
appending their invalid sigblock to all submissions.

Has Panix ceased spamifying the articles submitted to them?  I don't see
it in your posts.  Did they ever offer free trials, and those are the
submissions they spamified (as a lure to get those users to move to
their pay service)?  If Panix is no longer spammifying their articles, I
will modify my filter on them to stop flagging them as ignored.  I'll
still colorize them for awhile to watch if any spammified posts show up.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
01.01 o 

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal