In message <20040221080906.07155.00000844_at_mb-m06.aol.com>,
azzz1588_at_aol.com (Azzz1588) wrote:
>In article <mvna309ovukqkack30dejc5329s9otgelu_at_4ax.com>, JPS_at_no.komm writes:
>
>>Even the explicit:
>>
>>rec.photo.digital drop organization:mail2news_at_nym.alias.net
>>
>>... does not filter anything.
>
>
>
>Call me lame for being on aol all you want, after a few minutes putting
>key words into the killfilter, all the foul languaged troll posts just
>up and went away.............
What will you do next week when they start using decoy subject lines
that ask questions about digital cameras?
I have no doubt that filtering by subject would eliminate 95% of the
anonymous insult posts right now, but I know that it is only a temporary
solution, and I don't really feel a need to delete or not retrieve a
post just because the subject line has a word like "fuck" in it. *That*
would be self-imposed censorship. I have no desire to filter out
certain words; words don't offend me. It is the epidemic
disorganization and inefficiency of someone using a digital photography
newsgroup to stalk and insult and embarrass with hundreds of new
threads, instead of discussing digital photography, that makes me desire
spin-off groups for anonymous remailers (like rec.photo.digital.anon).
Anyone who cares what was attempted to be posted in this group from an
anonymous remailer can browse through the subjects there.
Or, another option is for ISPs to flag "ANON:" at the beginning of the
subject line, or FROM: field.
Of course, if most newsreaders did that themselves, the need would be
small until the anon insult-posts started coming in at thousands a day,
and it would be much more efficient to tag them at the ISP.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS_at_no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
| 
