|
Spam again..a record perhaps?
I just looked at r.f.cooking, marked all messages read and
continued with other groups. In less than 5 minutes, the autosychronize showed 38 messages. My filters allowed exactly one of them thro' ! I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
"James Silverton" wrote:
> > I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from > googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. You're posting this garbage why, you're a paranoid schizophrenic... you're so infantile that you need permission because you're too ascared to just do stuff by your ownself... what's to consider, just do it or not but STFU, be a man instead of a wishy washy wuss. I guess the widdle booboo needs company when he goes weewee. Sheldon Prozac |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
James Silverton wrote:
> I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from > googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. > I've considered, and blocked, gmail several times. Seems the "kiddies" like that choice along with hotmail and yahoo mail. But some folks who are regular long-time posters here also use gmail. I have no clue why they do. So I've had to "unblock" just to figure out what some threads were about when regulars reply because some idiots don't include the headers or quote any part of the original post. Which means we have no idea if the OP was a regular or just a spammer. Please use proper attributions when you quote! And hopefully *all* the schools will be back in session soon. Jill |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote: > James Silverton wrote: > > I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from > > googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. > > > I've considered, and blocked, gmail several times. Seems the "kiddies" like > that choice along with hotmail and yahoo mail. But some folks who are > regular long-time posters here also use gmail. I have no clue why they do. Because gmail has REALLY good spam filters, it lends itself to a certain anonymity for usenet and my Century account has become unreliable, often filtering out (at the server level so I can't see it) legitimate messages that I NEED to see! Jeremy has never been able to get through to my Century account. I think they have entire domains blocked. Gmail does not do that. Century also killed all of my YahooGroups mail so I had to switch them all over to gmail too. They upgraded a couple of months ago. That's whey their reliability went straight to hell. Even my sister and inlaws went to gmail this year and sis' is a technophile. > So I've had to "unblock" just to figure out what some threads were about > when regulars reply because some idiots don't include the headers or quote > any part of the original post. Which means we have no idea if the OP was a > regular or just a spammer. Please use proper attributions when you quote! > And hopefully *all* the schools will be back in session soon. > > Jill Next week. :-) -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:38:53 -0500, Omelet wrote: > > > Because gmail has REALLY good spam filters, > > Oh, the irony. > > -sw Huh? I don't spam! -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
In article >,
Steve Wertz > wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:50:47 -0500, Omelet wrote: > > > In article >, > > Steve Wertz > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:38:53 -0500, Omelet wrote: > >> > >>> Because gmail has REALLY good spam filters, > >> > >> Oh, the irony. > > > > Huh? > > > > I don't spam! > > Didn't say you did. > > > I was commenting on Google's ability to filter spam from Google > Mail so efficiently, but encourages spam in Google Groups. > > -sw Ah. Sorry. Gmail filters really are very good, and they appear to be "learning" filters as they occasionally grab stuff that is NOT spam, and don't generally repeat the error when you declare it "not spam". I always peruse my gray mail just in case. -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
James Silverton wrote:
> I just looked at r.f.cooking, marked all messages read and continued > with other groups. In less than 5 minutes, the autosychronize showed > 38 messages. My filters allowed exactly one of them thro' ! > > I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from googlemail > sites and I am still considering killing gmail. I don't think so, unless NIN is doing a lot of blocking. I didn't see any spam this morning. Now, I do have some individual filters set for popular spam topics. BTW, did you know your character set is set to be windows-1256? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows-1256> Brian -- If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:20:40 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote: >I just looked at r.f.cooking, marked all messages read and >continued with other groups. In less than 5 minutes, the >autosychronize showed 38 messages. My filters allowed exactly >one of them thro' ! > >I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from >googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. > > > Get an ISP that filters most of the crap for you and a news reader that allows to filer the rest without losing messages from people you want to read. -- Susan N. "Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral, 48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy." Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974) |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
Default wrote on 30 Aug 2007 17:15:09 GMT:
DU> BTW, did you know your character set is set to be DU> windows-1256? I've been told that before and it does not seem to be any problem tho' I've no idea how it ever happened :-) I don't see any need for me to investigate it but I might if you tell me why I should. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
The wrote on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:08:39 -0500:
??>> I just looked at r.f.cooking, marked all messages read and ??>> continued with other groups. In less than 5 minutes, the ??>> autosychronize showed 38 messages. My filters allowed ??>> exactly one of them thro' ! ??>> ??>> I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from ??>> googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. ??>> TC> Get an ISP that filters most of the crap for you and a news TC> reader that allows to filer the rest without losing TC> messages from people you want to read. That's pretty nearly what I have but I do find it interesting to see the statistics prior to filtering. I will admit that the names in my kill file are included in the count but, apart from a very few regular posters who I don't care to read for various reasons, the number is small. Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the killing is mutual :-) A few other fertile sources of spam are tom.com and 123.com. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
Omelet wrote:
> In article >, > Steve Wertz > wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:50:47 -0500, Omelet wrote: >> >>> In article >, >>> Steve Wertz > wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:38:53 -0500, Omelet wrote: >>>> >>>>> Because gmail has REALLY good spam filters, >>>> >>>> Oh, the irony. >>> >>> Huh? >>> >>> I don't spam! >> >> Didn't say you did. >> >> >> I was commenting on Google's ability to filter spam from Google >> Mail so efficiently, but encourages spam in Google Groups. >> >> -sw > > Ah. Sorry. > > Gmail filters really are very good, and they appear to be "learning" > filters (snippage) the "learning" is in learning how to SPAM newsgroups. I can't begin to count how many SPAM posts (and emails) I've deleted from gmail users in just the past week. It's ridiculous. |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
In article >,
"jmcquown" > wrote: > Omelet wrote: > > In article >, > > Steve Wertz > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:50:47 -0500, Omelet wrote: > >> > >>> In article >, > >>> Steve Wertz > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:38:53 -0500, Omelet wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Because gmail has REALLY good spam filters, > >>>> > >>>> Oh, the irony. > >>> > >>> Huh? > >>> > >>> I don't spam! > >> > >> Didn't say you did. > >> > >> > >> I was commenting on Google's ability to filter spam from Google > >> Mail so efficiently, but encourages spam in Google Groups. > >> > >> -sw > > > > Ah. Sorry. > > > > Gmail filters really are very good, and they appear to be "learning" > > filters (snippage) > > the "learning" is in learning how to SPAM newsgroups. I can't begin to > count how many SPAM posts (and emails) I've deleted from gmail users in just > the past week. It's ridiculous. I'm presuming that Giganews has good spam filters. I still see a few spams on the newsgroups. but they are few and far between. Maybe 2 to 4 per day MAX. -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
James Silverton wrote:
> Default wrote on 30 Aug 2007 17:15:09 GMT: > > DU> BTW, did you know your character set is set to be > DU> windows-1256? > > I've been told that before and it does not seem to be any problem > tho' I've no idea how it ever happened :-) Oddly, this message is "iso-8859-1", or Western European > I don't see any need for > me to investigate it but I might if you tell me why I should. I don't know that it would cause any newsreaders problems, no one seems to be complaining. My newsreader displays which charset is being used, with an option to switch to any that it recognizes. It also uses whatever the original was in replies, unless I change it (like here, where I've switched to US ASCII). Brian -- If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
Steve Wertz wrote:
> And it still amazes me that Google Groups still allows all this > shoe spam after close to 200,000 messages in 4 weeks. They simply > just don't give a shit. BUt as pl;ong as it motivates people to > kill everything from Google Groups (not gmail or yahoo), then I > guess all that spam does serve a purpose. I've mentioned before that Google really should get the Usenet Death Penalty for their behavior. This tolerance for spamming is ridiculous. I doubt anyone would care to take on the 9000lb gorilla though. Brian -- If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:20:40 GMT, "James Silverton"
> wrote: >I just looked at r.f.cooking, marked all messages read and >continued with other groups. In less than 5 minutes, the >autosychronize showed 38 messages. My filters allowed exactly >one of them thro' ! > >I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from >googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. > > > > James Silverton i had 1,320 messages today and my newsproxy and agent filters canned all but 370, and i gave the boot to six based on subject. i don't know if verizon does any filtering on their side. your pal, blake |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:38:53 -0500, Omelet >
wrote: >In article >, > "jmcquown" > wrote: > >> James Silverton wrote: >> > I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from >> > googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. >> > >> I've considered, and blocked, gmail several times. Seems the "kiddies" like >> that choice along with hotmail and yahoo mail. But some folks who are >> regular long-time posters here also use gmail. I have no clue why they do. > >Because gmail has REALLY good spam filters, it lends itself to a certain >anonymity for usenet and my Century account has become unreliable, often >filtering out (at the server level so I can't see it) legitimate >messages that I NEED to see! > >Jeremy has never been able to get through to my Century account. >I think they have entire domains blocked. Gmail does not do that. >Century also killed all of my YahooGroups mail so I had to switch them >all over to gmail too. > >They upgraded a couple of months ago. That's whey their reliability went >straight to hell. Even my sister and inlaws went to gmail this year and >sis' is a technophile. > I refuse to use gmail, yahoo mail, or hotmail. All of them are spammers tools, and I wont use them. On the other hand, I ma having the same problem. My isp installed a spam blocker that tends to block legitimate mail but lets most spam get through. In the past week I have gotten at least 30 spams for erection pills and the like. Even a complete computer illiterate idiot should be able to block those. I see an isp change in the near future, but until then, I need to switch over to a free web based email. Both so I can get my desirable email, and so that when I change isp, I wont lose current messages. The question is what to use. Is there a free email available that is smaller and dont have the bad reputation that the three biggies (above). Anyone know of anything that works and is user friendly? Thanks Sue & Jim |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
One time on Usenet, "jmcquown" > said:
> James Silverton wrote: > > I recently concluded that I don't need any messages from > > googlemail sites and I am still considering killing gmail. > > > I've considered, and blocked, gmail several times. Seems the "kiddies" like > that choice along with hotmail and yahoo mail. But some folks who are > regular long-time posters here also use gmail. I have no clue why they do. Because I don't want my real e-mail addy flooded with spam, I guess. Gmail does a good job of filtering. > So I've had to "unblock" just to figure out what some threads were about > when regulars reply because some idiots don't include the headers or quote > any part of the original post. Which means we have no idea if the OP was a > regular or just a spammer. Please use proper attributions when you quote! Amen! > And hopefully *all* the schools will be back in session soon. DS went back on Wednesday. He love it. But he doesn't play on Usenet even when he is home... -- Jani in WA |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
|
Spam again..a record perhaps?
One time on Usenet, Omelet > said:
> In article >, > unge (Little Malice) wrote: > > > > I've considered, and blocked, gmail several times. Seems the "kiddies" > like > > > that choice along with hotmail and yahoo mail. But some folks who are > > > regular long-time posters here also use gmail. I have no clue why they > do. > > > > Because I don't want my real e-mail addy flooded with spam, I guess. > > Gmail does a good job of filtering. > > Gmail filters are excellent. > > Need an invite? No, no -- I already have an account. But thank you! > If Jill filters out Gmail users, she'll lose a good percentage of > posters from this list. > > Her loss... That's why I never filter by domain. I only have a couple of authors killfiles -- I usually kill by subject, whether it was crossposted, and if it's too many lines long. Works pretty well for me... :-) -- Jani in WA |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
|
Spam again..a record perhaps?
Little Malice wrote:
> One time on Usenet, said: >> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:38:11 GMT, unge (Little >> Malice) wrote: >> >> >That's why I never filter by domain. I only have a couple of >> >authors killfiles -- I usually kill by subject, whether it was >> >crossposted, and if it's too many lines long. Works pretty well >> >for me... :-) >> >> So, what are you using for filtering purposes? > > NewsXpress 2.0, which was last updated in 1995. It's very basic, text > only. I've been toying with the new Vista version of Microsloth Mail, > and it's not too bad. I may switch after all these years... :-) Xnews was based on NewsXpress. http://xnews.newsguy.com http://blinkynet.net/comp/xnewsrels.html Support: news.software.readers Mo http://blinkynet.net/comp/ndx_windows.html#x -- Blinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org <----------- New Site Aug 28 |
Spam again..a record perhaps?
One time on Usenet, Blinky the Shark > said:
> Little Malice wrote: > > One time on Usenet, said: > >> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:38:11 GMT, unge (Little > >> Malice) wrote: > >> > >> >That's why I never filter by domain. I only have a couple of > >> >authors killfiles -- I usually kill by subject, whether it was > >> >crossposted, and if it's too many lines long. Works pretty well > >> >for me... :-) > >> > >> So, what are you using for filtering purposes? > > > > NewsXpress 2.0, which was last updated in 1995. It's very basic, text > > only. I've been toying with the new Vista version of Microsloth Mail, > > and it's not too bad. I may switch after all these years... :-) > > Xnews was based on NewsXpress. > > http://xnews.newsguy.com > > http://blinkynet.net/comp/xnewsrels.html > > Support: news.software.readers > > Mo http://blinkynet.net/comp/ndx_windows.html#x I've tried Xnews but it's too overblown for me, compared to NewXpress. But thanks for the thought... -- Jani in WA |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter