Talk:Sporgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sporgery article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Internet Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Supersedes

I always thought sporgery involved use of the supersedes header to overwrite actual messages, replacing them with new content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.241.137 (talk • contribs).

No, the sporgeries didn't have a supersedes header. But they used the same username and subject lines than real messages - to confuse. Due to certain flaws in the message headers, it was possible to cancel them with software that would detect them. --Tilman 19:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Supersedes was used now and then (December 1997, etc) during various phases of disruption for cancelling. I forget right now if supersedes was ever combined with the sporgery, but it would have stuck out like a sore thumb. One reason for the flaws in the headers was (probably) so that the software would recognize and not sporge its own articles, although I think it did do that sometimes. AndroidCat 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology series?

I would like to remove this entry from the Scientology Series. While Scientologists may have adapted sporgery to great effect, the practice is still active on Usenet today without Scientologists' participation (as far as I know). This is a Usenet phenomenon used by Scientologists at one time, but it is not really a Scientology phenomenon.

Any opinions Phiwum 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I haven't observed the phenomenon unrelated to scientology. (Some other newsgroups were flooded in 1999 in an effort to make it appear as unrelated, but it quickly concentrated on ars only)--Tilman 17:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The usenet group sci.crypt is regularly flooded with sporgeries. I don't know who is doing it or why, but I don't think it has a damn thing to do with Scientology. Phiwum 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you mention a few links from google groups? I wonder if it is the same structure. And hey, it could also be something encrypted. --Tilman 05:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for a recent example, check the thread "JSH: I need a question answered." A few of the posts are genuine, but the majority are sporgeries. [1] (And the possibility that someone is using a large sporgery flood in sci.crypt to send an encrypted message is not outside the realm of possibility, but too unlikely to count for much.) Phiwum 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. This is disturbing. Post #6 is really like the sporgeries I remember. I thus change my position to "neutral". --Tilman 18:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sci.chem has become completely useless due to sporge, the sporger is concealing everything with Disassociated Press text, even the header fields. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/topics 69.0.56.155 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New attacks?

Starting early to mid January 08, new sporgery attacks have been hitting alot of groups. This is the first time I have personly noticed large scale sporgery in locational .general groups and other seemingly random groups. Perhaps other usenet users can confirm.

Does this deserve mention on the main page? 99.240.198.86 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] defence

Shouldn't the article mention common means of defence against such attacks? Such as using gpg-signatures to identify the actual poster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.63.195 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)