How to interpret this

I enter: nslookup 218.111.104.105

Results:

Server: cns3.tm.net.my
Address: 202.188.0.133

Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my
Address: 218.111.104.105


What is the meaning of the line "Name" ?

Thanks.

In news:b919f317-79c7-4789-a26b-(E-Mail Removed),
(E-Mail Removed) <(E-Mail Removed)> typed:

> Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my
> Address: 218.111.104.105
>
> What is the meaning of the line "Name" ?

It's the "N" in FQDN.

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article
<b919f317-79c7-4789-a26b-(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

>I enter: nslookup 218.111.104.105
>
>Results:
>
>Server: cns3.tm.net.my
>Address: 202.188.0.133
>
>Name: 111.218.in-addr.arpa.tm.net.my
>Address: 218.111.104.105
>
>What is the meaning of the line "Name" ?

It means the idiots who set up the zone file at dnsteam.tm.net.my have
a wild-card entry for a number of hosts - if you try others in the range
218.111.104.* (random tries between 218.111.77.123 and 218.111.127.123
tested at 03:00 UTC) you get the same answer. Alternatively, some klown
wrote a script to create the reverse zone file, intending each address
to have the 'in-addr.arpa name prepending (in front of) the tm.net.my
domain name, and didn't bother to check the results. In either case,
it's a good demonstration of a lack of skill and failing to check their
work.

As you are posting from this domain, you might pass the word to the
domain admin that his work is defective. This type of "generic" PTR
record will prevent reception of mail at many mail servers, but then
it's tm.net.my, and that has it's own problems with blacklists.

Old guy

On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
"dramatically reduced" chances?

DS

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:
>
>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
>
> Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
> "dramatically reduced" chances?

Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID: googlegroups.com"
due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse originating there.

On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 8:12 pm, ibupro...@painkiller.example.tld (Moe Trin) wrote:

> >> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
> >> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

> > Do you have some kind of statistical evidence to demonstrate these
> > "dramatically reduced" chances?

> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID: googlegroups.com"
> due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse originating there.

1) Who is "us"?

2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some
"us" that doesn't include you?

3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of
anything more than a couple of cranks?

4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy
drive is not a "real computer".

DS

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:38:53 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
>> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
>> originating there.
>
> 1) Who is "us"?

Are you some kind of moron?

> 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
> that doesn't include you?

For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
from google in my scorefile.

> 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
> more than a couple of cranks?

I need no evidence, why do you? Calling people who choose to block spam
as "cranks" is not really polite.

> 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
> bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy drive
> is not a "real computer".

It's no more bizarre than your questions.

Google is a spam sewer and Moe's advice is useful and proper. I don't
give a flying fuck if you get blocked or not. Use a real news service if
you care about the maximum number of interested people seeing your
articles. Or not.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <s7-(E-Mail Removed)>, Dave Uhring wrote:

>David Schwartz wrote:

>> Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
>>> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
>>> originating there.

>> 1) Who is "us"?

Why not wander over to the Usenet newsgroup 'news.software.readers'
and perhaps you'll find some hints. You might even discover some
new acronyms - like UDP (though I doubt it will happen again).

Several years ago, individuals would file abuse complaints for spam,
whether in mail or Usenet. Providers like charter, comcast, roadrunner,
qwest, sbc/what-ever-they-call-themselves-now and others would (at best)
respond with an auto-reply from an ignore-bot. For email, the result of
this lack of response was blacklists that people created to know who
NOT to accept mail from. Usenet has had the capability for over ten
years for the individual to block posts if the administrator of some
server didn't want to deal with abuse complaints.

>Are you some kind of moron?

He's certainly a google supporter.

>> 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
>> that doesn't include you?
>
>For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
>from google in my scorefile.

An advantage of using a real news reader and news server is that you can
set scores for individual or multiple groups, or global scores. Not only
am I blocking googlegroups.com in c.o.l.m (as well as seven other groups
of the 80 I try to scan daily), I'm also blocking _replies_ to
googlegroups posts in two groups, where some readers can't resist
replying to such googlespam.

>> 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
>> more than a couple of cranks?

Lessee, there is a newsgroup statistics article posted to this group, and
you might look for such posts - often weekly and occasionally monthly -
in other groups. Notice what is _missing_ in those posts.

>I need no evidence, why do you? Calling people who choose to block spam
>as "cranks" is not really polite.

Some of us really aren't interested in athletic shoes, watches, pills,
tobacco products, and other garbage being spamvertised by google posters,
and don't see the need to try to come up with a multitude of filter rules
to catch the morphing spammers. One rule is all it takes, and I don't
see any indication that I am missing _useful_ posts because of it.

>> 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
>> bizarre prejudice,

You might want to look at a packet sniffer and see what the traffic
looks like when you are using google. Never mind the advertisements that
google inserts (gee - do I miss that crap?) into their output. You
should also notice the scripting they are trying to use to be able to
provide you with a "better experience" - meaning more targeted ads I
suppose. That's something I don't get from a real news server. The
whole reason for the _existence_ of google is advertisements. The
Usenet archive and search engine are merely attractions google uses to
get you to view the advertisements they've sold. If I can get the same
results without the ads, common sense says I'm going elsewhere.

>Google is a spam sewer

and it ignores abuse complaints, so people ignoring googlegroups is
simply common sense.

Old guy

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:55:13 -0500, Moe Trin wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking,
> in article <s7-(E-Mail Removed)>, Dave Uhring
> wrote:

>>Are you some kind of moron?
>
> He's certainly a google supporter.

And a windows user here to troll and provide no useful input.

On Apr 10, 6:21 pm, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:38:53 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

> > On Apr 10, 4:23 pm, Dave Uhring <daveuhr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> Many of us simply killfile posts containing "Message-ID:
> >> googlegroups.com" due to the immense amount of spam and other abuse
> >> originating there.

> > 1) Who is "us"?

> Are you some kind of moron?

It's a serious question. Who are you talking about? It obviously
doesn't include you, since you read my post, and I usually post from
Google.

> > 2) Clearly you don't since you are replying to me, so this is some "us"
> > that doesn't include you?

> For the time being only comp.os.linux.misc has a score of -9999 for posts
> from google in my scorefile.

In other words, this is an "us" that doesn't include you.

> > 3) Do you have any evidence that this "many of us" consists of anything
> > more than a couple of cranks?

> I need no evidence, why do you?

Because you are the one making a claim, and I am the skeptic. If you
don't have any evidence to support your claim, why should anyone take
it seriously?

> Calling people who choose to block spam
> as "cranks" is not really polite.

What you mean is calling people cranks *because* they choose to block
spam is not really polite. As far as I know, I have never done this.
Calling people cranks because they advise others to block spam in ways
that cause significant collateral damage, on the other hand, is quite
reasonable.

I'm not sure why this matters though, because this discussion is about
how many people block google groups, not about whether it's a good
idea or a bad idea to do so.

> > 4) The claim that google is somehow not a "real news server" is just
> > bizarre prejudice, akin to arguing that anything without a floppy drive
> > is not a "real computer".

> It's no more bizarre than your questions.

> Google is a spam sewer and Moe's advice is useful and proper. I don't
> give a flying fuck if you get blocked or not. Use a real news service if
> you care about the maximum number of interested people seeing your
> articles. Or not.

You have repeated your claim rather than presented evidence for it.
What is a "real" news service? One that meets with your personal
approval?

DS