On Monday 01 Dec 2003 1:44 pm, you wrote:
> Paul Harwood wrote:
> >On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 03:39:07 -0000, you wrote:
> >>Bruce Reilly (a.k.a Bruha) <bruha@...>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>There have been three of them, I believe, to MWM.
> >>
> >>I assume he got the FAQ and the pass phrase to be able to post. I'm
> >>wondering if anyone plans on popping him a note to let him know his
> >>posts aren't quite on-topic.
> >
> >It looks to me like he's forging his approval. Not even really a
> >forgery, come to think about it.
>
> I don't think it's propagating on the whole system. None of his
> messages have come up for me.
>

His message has cropped up in several other newsgroups I frequent. As Paul
says he's forging the Approved: header (all right, he's adding an approved
header which he's not really entitled to do but this is USENET so who's to
say what he can and can't...), and I've complained to the two sites he's so
far used to inject his stuff (ntlworld and cox.net). I would guess that
David is behind some pretty good spamcatching software somewhere which is
detecting the multiple postings and zapping them from his feed. Good in some
ways, not necessarily ideal for a mod who might want to know everything
that's going on in the group. Which is not to say that we want to lose David,
of course, but these are the sorts of things you learn in the doing.

There doesn't seem to be anything we can do about forged Approvals, other
than jump up and down at the injecting site. Because once a post has an
Approved: header it will propagate through well-configured sites, the post
never comes to the modbot so we can't blacklist (this poster morphs his
address anyway) and an abuser like that isn't going to care about a warning
from us even if we could get a valid e-mail address for him.

john