What is this? & please stop messing w/ my email...

[Merlyn 0]

...and I looked at the email headers for an obvious spam email I received. The originating IP address isn't on anyone's block list.

Received: from ir4.sepxrsb.com ([66.54.93.245]) by mc2-f37.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:07:58 -0700

Received: from nfw.tmvrt.com (10.0.1.12) by ir4.sepxrsb.com with QMQP; 28 Jul 2004 18:07:56 -0700

X-Message-Info: 6sSXyD95QpVYnO2y1zk1IVSPdficTlFB

Message-Id: <31t0ti$16fbtu3[at]ir4.sepxrsb.com>

X-X-Sender: 30085188

Return-Path: hgbn101839eaav[at]nfw.tmvrt.com

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2004 01:07:58.0669 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CC4FFD0:01C47508]

14168[/snapback]

Yes it is on many lists. Where did you look. You need to refine your search skills.

This is a noted spammer see:

http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL14642

http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL14853

They are Rokso Listed which means they are the worst of the worst and have been kicked off at least 3 providers for spamming and are block on site.

They are also on the following:

SPAMCOP SpamCop Blocking List: bl.spamcop.net -> 127.0.0.2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ AHBL The Abusive Hosts Blocking List: dnsbl.ahbl.org -> 127.0.0.4

1088977894 (Sun Jul 4 23:51:34 2004) bruns - spam Source - 66.54.93.128/25 - lifsvdir.com, polgarlf.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ CSMA-SBL McFadden Associates, IPs of mailservers that send spam once in a short timefram: sbl.csma.biz -> 127.0.0.2

http://bl.csma.biz/cgi-bin/listing.cgi?ip=66.54.93.245

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ SORBSSPEWS-L1 spam Prevention Early Warning System - Level 1 Mirror: l1.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net -> 127.0.0.2

! [1] New Horizons, see http://spews.org/ask.cgi?S2507

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ SORBSSPEWS-L2 spam Prevention Early Warning System - Level 2 Mirror: l2.spews.dnsbl.sorbs.net -> 127.0.0.2

! [1] New Horizons, see http://spews.org/ask.cgi?S2507

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ DNSBLAUT1 Reynolds Technology Type 1: t1.dnsbl.net.au -> 127.0.0.2

66.54.93.245 See http://dnsbl.ahbl.org/ and http://dnsbl.net.au/lookup/?ip=66.54.93.245

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ DNSBLUCEPN External Block List - UCEPROTECT®-Network Project: ucepn.dnsbl.net.au -> 127.0.0.2

PLEASE SEE http://www.uceprotect.net/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ DNSBLAUSPEWS spam Prevention Early Warning System: spews.dnsbl.net.au -> 127.0.0.2

66.54.93.245 See http://spews.org/ and http://www.dnsbl.net.au/spews/

Wow you must not have looked anywhere!

[eaolson 0]

1. Nothing is unclear about it. It's just WRONG. It doesn't refute anything lereveur stated previously.

Um, actually it refutes everything he had been saying.

2. It's still very clear it shouldn't be the responsibility of the innocent receiver (me) or the sender to learn about all this BS, decipher it, study it, prove our innocence to some self-appointed meddler... we're not computer experts or IT people! We're just two business people trying to send a simple email and it's being subverted by spamcop & similar services.

You don't have to prove anything. You're not listed. You're not being accused of anything (other than being hotheaded).

I'm trying to receive emails from my customers, and at least 3 have been blocked by spamcop. ....

We're all completely innocent victims of this crap!

You're the one that started this thread. If I understand your original problem correctly, you're the one doing the blocking. Or your ISP is, same thing.

They are responsible but not accountable!

SpamCop is 100% accountable to the only people that matter: it's users. If it weren't trustworthy and responsible, no one would use it, and it would no longer exist.

The problem seems to be that you, or someone acting as your agent, has implemented bouncing email using the SpamCop blacklist. SpamCop has no control over that. Furthermore, you haven't provided enough information to determine whether or not any IP address was correctly or incorrectly listed.

What exactly do you want us to do?

[pwhaughey 0]

Life isn't fair.  The working of the internet is based entirely on netiquette. 

14184[/snapback]

OMG!!! Tampering with email from an innocent victim, this is netiquette?

Calling me stupid, ignorant, a troll...Spamcop ingoring complaints from innocent victims, Spamcop strategically erasing some of my posts...this all is your idea netiquette? Well, at least you're consistent.

[Wazoo 0]

Spamcop ingoring complaints from innocent victims,

From all the traffic that's been generated, being ignored is hardly in the picture.

Spamcop strategically erasing some of my posts...

Erasing, hardly .... removing your rant from other Topics where your rant had no bearing, information, or impact on the subject matter of those Topics was performed ... you will find all your lovely off-Topic stuff now existing in the Lounge.

[Ralsky's Fatal Tumor 0]

you will find all your lovely off-Topic stuff now existing in the Lounge.

Oh, he found it all right. Already replied over there and called us "terrorists" again, too. I guess we need some masks and a catchy slogan now.

[eaolson 0]

OMG!!! Tampering with email from an innocent victim, this is netiquette?

The only one that has tampered with your email is YOU, you blithering idiot.

Getting abusive rants from people that are listed in the SCBL I can understand. Forgive, no. Understand, yes. But from someone who is implementing it? That just boggles the mind.

[Bumpkin 0]

It seems to me that at this point everyone here is wasting time by trying to reply and work this out.

The false accusations and downright misguided and uneducated insults by the OP and buddy make for interesting reading, (watch out for those black helicopters!), but they are obviously wanting a fight and not wanting to find a solution for themselves, such as (gasp) calling their ISP and finding out about whitelisting.

Now, reading the thread for humor on the other hand.... well.... that's what I just did....

[lereveur 0]

Again... if you choose to read what I write, I've contacted my ISP. They said that they are working on the problem.

I've read all the FAQ's. They make sense but basically say that it's a 48 hour waiting game. I know the block lists aren't ultimately responsible because they are only providing a service of listing suspect email servers.

Also, your ISP should be providing you with a way to "whitelist" the messages from "lereveur" and others....dont' they do that? It's probably time for you to get a new email provider!

I've been on several ISP's and have yet to find any that do this. Or if they do, they don't tell anyone about it.

No user of an email server is declared guilty. Ignorant, maybe, but not guilty.

A user of an email server is declared guilty when their email server is placed on any block list. SpamCop simply lets them go after 48 hours. Would you like to be in jail for 48 hours because your neighbor down the street committed a crime?

The server administrator is not even presumed guilty of being in cahoots with the spammer.

True... except in the case of BlarsBL (haven't checked any other block lists so I don't know how similar or dissimilar they are to BlarsBL)

I'm not angry at any of you. I'm not even angry at SpamCop because it at least clears the problem in 48 hours. Though I wish they would allow for quicker clearing.

I'm not being rude or lacking in netiquette either.

I'm only discussing the falacies of this method of attacking spam. Marking the entire neighborhood for annihilation is wrong. It may even be evil. Technically, SpamCop isn't doing the annihilation. SpamCop is doing the recommendations for annihilation.

[StevenUnderwood 0]

Though I wish they would allow for quicker clearing.

If your ISP's admin contacts the deputies and can indicate that the problem has been fixed (and no more reports are coming through to prove that point), the deputies have been known to remove IP's from the list.

Or if your ISP's admin can show that the report was an error of some sort (incorrect parse for instance), the deputies will usually remove the IP immediately.

[Wazoo 0]

Actually, there is a mathmatical formula in place. BL time can range from one-half hour to the 48 hours maximum ... after spew stops. The basic point is that nothing can really be accomplished from "here" without the IP address of the "problem" server ... domains, e-mail addresses, countries, etc. have no bearing on getting into the SpamCopDNSbl ... If the only justification turns out to be spamtrap hits, then that evidence can only be viewed by one of the Deputies, but that the previous conversations include "30 other users" states that there was more to the story, especially when you factor in the SpamCop reporters vice the internet public at large. Out of the thousands of computers/customers I've dealt with over the last few years, I can tell you that I am the only person that had heard of and used SpamCop. The general action was the "just hit delete" from the wiser ones, the others complained about the "unsubscibe" links not working or not doing any good .... So if you interpolate those 30 complaints as being in the same ratio, one would take that as a pretty massive spam spew that was occurring.

[Ralsky's Fatal Tumor 0]

I'm only discussing the falacies of this method of attacking spam. Marking the entire neighborhood for annihilation is wrong. It may even be evil. Technically, SpamCop isn't doing the annihilation. SpamCop is doing the recommendations for annihilation.

Please keep in mind that, whenever possible, SpamCop does not mark an "entire neighborhood" for blocking. If spam is coming from a single ip address and that single address represents only one machine (an infected computer on a college campus, let's say) then the only that particular machine/ip is put on the list.

"Neighborhoods" are only listed when that ip address is shared between different parties (several businesses sharing an outbound server at a hosting company, in which case there's no way to identify which particular business is the source of the spam) or when it's apparent that any ip address owned by a particular entity ("bulletproof" spam-hosting services, most of China, etc.) is going to be used as a source of spam. If you really look at the facts, SpamCop tries to be as precise as possible when it comes to the block list.

[Bumpkin 0]

Again... if you choose to read what I write, I've contacted my ISP. They said that they are working on the problem.

I've been on ISP's ranging from very small, rural ISP's to large, high-speed networks, and they all offer "spam blocking" in one form or another, and they should (note I said SHOULD, not "do") offer a way to turn it on and off on a particular account. Forcing a user to block spam if they do not want to may not be a good business model. Blocking spam should be an option OR if you are blocking spam, being able to whitelist should be an option. If your ISP is having to "work on the problem", they probably don't have a clue what they're doing (possibly why they're on so many BL's to begin with?).

[pwhaughey 0]

Update from the "blithering idiot"/"troll"/"ranter":

Neither my internet service provider (southwestern bell) nor my web host (ipowerweb) subscribe to spamcop or any spam-policing system. I have zero spam filters turned on, and oddly, my problem is not unwanted email but that spamcop stopping wanted email.

Back to square one - innocent folks' emails are being subverted by someone subscribing to spamcop, not the two (or more) parties involved.

You tell me to stop subscribing to spamcop, or switch to a competent ISP. The problem doesn't lie there. I don't care ~how~ the names get on the blacklists, it's obvious to me the blacklisting system doesn't work & I want no part of it or with anyone who subscribes to the list. But how to opt out...

[Chris Parker 0]

Update from the "blithering idiot"/"troll"/"ranter":

Neither my internet service provider (southwestern bell) nor my web host (ipowerweb) subscribe to spamcop or any spam-policing system. I have zero spam filters turned on, and oddly, my problem is not unwanted email but that spamcop stopping wanted email.

Back to square one - innocent folks' emails are being subverted by someone subscribing to spamcop, not the two (or more) parties involved.

You tell me to stop subscribing to spamcop, or switch to a competent ISP. The problem doesn't lie there. I don't care ~how~ the names get on the blacklists, it's obvious to me the blacklisting system doesn't work & I want no part of it or with anyone who subscribes to the list. But how to opt out...

14242[/snapback]

Please leave out the rhetoric, name calling, etc, and lets just talk information.

Who handles your inbound email? (Do you have any email forwarding enabled?)

Edited July 29, 2004 by Chris Parker

[Bumpkin 0]

You tell me to stop subscribing to spamcop, or switch to a competent ISP.

Who told you to stop subscribing to SpamCop? If it was someone here, they should know better.

Once again, *someone's* ISP (either yours or the sender's) is using blocklists that include the SCBL (the SpamCop Block List).

Is SWB or ipowerweb providing your mail service? (ie. what pop and smtp server do you put in your e-mail program?) That may provide the users here with more information that can help someone get to the bottom of your problem.

The problem could very well be that your e-mail provider is attributing the bounced-back mail to SpamCop incorrectly (it's happened before unfortunately).

Thanks!

[SeanAW 0]

His name isn't Moris and lives in Edinburgh? No no, that's Spews innit.

I wouldn't bother trying to explain this to him any further, OP is displaying classic symptoms of clue repellance.

Blocked... see spamcop.net (for an explanation about spam and blocklists perhaps?)

Spews listings don't happen because someone runs a 'legitimate' business.

Spamcop's listing is the least of their worries

Although:

Listing History

In the past 153.1 days, it has been listed 20 times for a total of 76.6 days surely has some significance.

Spanked spammer sure whine don't they?

[Wazoo 0]

Neither my internet service provider (southwestern bell) nor my web host (ipowerweb) subscribe to spamcop or any spam-policing system. I have zero spam filters turned on, and oddly, my problem is not unwanted email but that spamcop stopping wanted email.

So, why are you here? You alleged some incoming e-mail was blocked, allegedly by SpamCop (which of course, isn't true, as SpamCop doesn't even "block" e-mail to its own users/system) .. you've offered nothing to evidence the accusations / queries ... one "friend" posts somehing that also included the fact that whoever/whatever was allegedly using the SpamCopDNSbl to reject his/her e-mail also now allows his/e-mail to make the journey as the specific IP (again, never offered up so "we" could look it up) aged off the SpamCopDNSbl ....

So you started with alleging that someone using the SpamCopDNSbl blocked some e-mail, now stating that no one at your end uses the SpamCopDNSbl .. you allege that you've been ignored, yet this Topic has expanded to three pages thus far .... you allege no answers. and yet any answer thus far have all been a bit conditional, as the actual blocking source and items have yet to be identified (and now you're suggesting that it was impossible for the blocking to occur in the first place as none of your e-mail providers used the SpamCopDNSbl) .... though funny for a while, you've even lost that aspect in your bitching and complaining ....

[Merlyn 0]

OMG!!! Tampering with email from an innocent victim, this is netiquette?

Calling me stupid, ignorant, a troll...Spamcop ingoring complaints from innocent victims, Spamcop strategically erasing some of my posts...this all is your idea netiquette? Well, at least you're consistent.

14223[/snapback]

Stupid - maybe

Ignorant - maybe

Troll - Yes.........

No one here tampered with your mail and if you are too "ignorant" to figure that out then no one here can help you.

You are not innocent but you are either too hard headed or too "stupid" to take some good advice that was given.

Quit being a Troll when you can't get your way.

That should just about cover it.

HTH HAND

Edited July 29, 2004 by Merlyn

[Miss Betsy 0]

A user of an email server is declared guilty when their email server is placed on any block list. SpamCop simply lets them go after 48 hours. Would you like to be in jail for 48 hours because your neighbor down the street committed a crime?

The user of an email server that is blocked is blocked because that IP address is not conforming to netiquette. Blocking, at least by spamcop, says nothing whatsoever about guilt. It is just information that spam has been observed coming from that IP address. Other lists, such as open proxies, do say something about incompetence or negligence, I suppose, but even then the assumption is that if someone tells you that you have spinach in your teeth, you will do something about it.

Jail is not an analogy because there are numerous ways that you can communicate (including through email). It is an inconvenience just as it is an inconvenience if a backhoe cuts the cable and the internet in your area goes dead. We live with all kinds of inconveniences caused by other people who are not paying attention or are deliberately reckless - for instance, a traffic jam.

Not being able to get a pizza delivered because you live in a high crime area is a much better analogy.

I do hope that your ISP is one that will take care of whatever problem it is - I haven't been able to follow all the technical guesses about who your ISP is.

I would also like to point out that because ISPs have had people ranting and raving about things they don't understand, many ISP's (like aol and hotmail) are using even more 'secret' and idiotic methods of reducing spam. I had all my email go in the bulk mail folder when hotmail updated my junk mail preference on their own - and this on an email address that does not receive spam. aol recently refused to accept emails I sent to my family because, I think, I had used capital letters in the subject.

I would much prefer to be able to either complain to my ISP or change ISP's than try to outguess the idiot filters - and I would feel 'responsible' and a good netizen - instead of being frustrated by having my email not delivered and have no recourse at all - you think they will tell me how to evade their filter? People here can tell you how to avoid the blocklist if you are legitimate server.

Miss Betsy

[Bumpkin 0]

Hrm..... no replies to actual questions, just knee jerk reactions. Happens to me sometimes too, but not when it's "critical" or "ruining me".

Those who have posted here trying to help deserve some kudos, especially Miss Betsy for not blowing a gasket.

For those who "needed help", I hope you get it and that you choose to handle matters in a different manner in the future.

Preferably while sedated....

[spiralocean 0]

I suspect the offended party is probably new to the internet. Just so there isn't any unordinate amount of offense by being labeled a Troll. It's an internet term. Here is the definition and why.

The following is taken from this link:

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT

 What is a Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

 Why Does it Matter?

Some people — particularly those who have been online for years — are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."

It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.

Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.

Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.

The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.

 What Can be Done about Trolls?

When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down.

However, if the person persists in being beastly, and seems to enjoy being unpleasant, the only effective position is summed up as follows:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

 What Not to Do

As already stated, it is futile to try to "cure" a troll of his obsession. But perhaps you simply cannot bear the hostile environment that the troll is creating and want to go away for a while.

If you do that, then for the sake of the others on the system, please do not post a dramatic "Goodbye!" message. This convinces the troll that he is winning the battle. There is, perhaps, no message you can write on a message system that is as damaging as an announcement that you are leaving because of the hostility that the troll has kindled.

If you feel you must say something, a discreet message to the system operator (and some of the others users, if you have their email addresses) is the best course of action. Incidentally, if you are writing the letter in an agitated state, it is a good idea to wait an hour and then give it one last review before you actually send it. That might spare you the pain of saying things that you don't really mean to people you like.

 Impersonation

One technique used by trolls to generate chaos is to pretend to be a well-liked person. On some systems there is nothing to prevent somebody from signing your name to a distasteful message. On other systems the troll may have to be a bit more wiley, perhaps by replacing one character with another. Here are some examples of various spoofing gimmicks that could be used against a person named Brenda Q. O'Really:

Brenda Q. O"Really

Brenda Q. 0'Really

Brenda Q  O'Really

Brenda Q. O'Rea11y

Bredna Q. O'Really

8renda Q. O'Really

Note: "Brenda Q. O'Really" is a made-up name used to illustrate spoofing and is not intended to refer to a particular person.

If you react with anger, the troll wins. So if you see a message impersonating you on a message board, simply write a follow-up reply entitled "That Wasn't Me" and type only this:

I did not write that message; it is a fake.

Of course, sometimes you will find that people who know you well have already identified the message as a fake and have tagged it as such. After all, one of the troll's goals is to make you look bad. If you have a good reputation, people will be tipped off if a message that you apparently wrote is completely out of character.

Trolls have been known to become so irritated at having their spoofs identified that they have learned to write in another person's style. They may end up writing an intelligent message that is indistinguishable from your own golden words. If that happens, you can always just let the post stand and take credit for it!

Trolls will also sometimes write a "That Wasn't Me" message after a genuine one, attempting to elicit a denial. There really is no reason to give him what he wants, since a "That Wasn't Me" warning merely reminds people to be skeptical. That is to say, it is of no real consequence if somebody isn't sure that you wrote a normal message, since in the long run it is the ideas that are important.

 The Webmaster's Challenge

When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed — more on this later.

The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.

Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.

Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one — himself.

 What about Free Speech?

When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.

While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.

Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.

The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.

When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.

The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbour has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)

 Why Do They Do It?

Affirmation.

Regular net users know how delightful it is when somebody responds to something they have written. It is a meeting of the minds, which is an intellectual thrill, but it is also an acknowledgement of one's value — and that can be a very satisfying emotional reward.

Trolls crave attention, and they care not whether it is positive or negative. They see the Internet as a mirror into which they can gaze in narcissistic rapture.

If you want a deeper analysis than that, perhaps a psychologist can shed some additional light on the matter.

 Conclusion

Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.

The Internet is a splendidly haphazard collection of both serious and silly material. Because it is so free, there are bound to be problems. I think that we can best enjoy it if we deal with everything that happens online with a wry grin and a ready shrug.

[Bumpkin 0]

I suspect the offended party is probably new to the internet.  Just so there isn't any unordinate amount of offense by being labeled a Troll.  It's an internet term.  Here is the definition and why.

The following is taken from this link:

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT

14299[/snapback]

Stopped reading and snipped right there.

It's very hard to read anything from a members.aol page and take it seriously, but thanks for defining what a troll is or the OP would have never known!

[Miss Betsy 0]

the OP would have never known

IMHO, the OP knew exactly what a troll was. IMHO, she was not being a troll in the classic sense - one who posts deliberately to start an argument - preferably among others.

Unfortunately, the term 'troll' is applied to any poster who is rude, uses ad hominem attacks, and doesn't truly 'debate' but has an agenda, and posts inappropriately to other topics with the same complaint (if the shoe fits put it on). Such a poster may be just as difficult to reason with and ignoring hir may be the best tactic.

The OP's friend, however, although not quite understanding the situation (and if you are mad, you don't do as careful research as you might), did not seem to be at all trollish to me - or probably to anyone using a newsgroup. 'Blunt' ways of stating your position are the style sometimes.

Both of them had a problem with the concept of blocking. Since we have the Lounge so it doesn't clutter up the Help forum for those with real problems, IMHO, it is worthwhile, if one has the time, to continue to post rebuttals. Obviously, there was no way that any particular help was going to be given without their cooperation (and although people are very helpful to those who have problems with being on the bl, it really isn't spamcop's problem. The people who can solve their problem are the ISPs involved).

If anything, it gives people who are searching for answers about the concept of blocking, a kind of FAQ (or in these cases, a FSIO). And it provides entertainment!

Miss Betsy