|
A proposition
I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant
without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, so I deleted the rule. I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. nancy |
A proposition
Nancy Young wrote:
> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > so I deleted the rule. > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? > > Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. > > nancy I completely understand, Nancy! Apparently when I suggested the name change it was taken poorly. So, whatever. Now I just don't see their posts. At least not until some loser gmail and hotmail folks give up the spamming and go away. Then maybe I can unblock the domains. Remember when it was just AOL? LOL Jill |
A proposition
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote > > Nancy Young wrote: > >> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant >> without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, >> I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, >> so I deleted the rule. >> >> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because >> she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. >> >> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? >> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? >> >> Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. > > > I just did the exact same thing, thanx for your post... > > Remember when gmail "invitations" were highly - coveted...??? I would love if I had that option! I have that option with my email and I don't like it for that. nancy |
A proposition
Nancy Young wrote: > I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > so I deleted the rule. > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? > > Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. I just did the exact same thing, thanx for your post... Remember when gmail "invitations" were highly - coveted...??? -- Best Greg |
A proposition
Nancy Young wrote: > I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > so I deleted the rule. > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? Om is one person who has a gmail address, so I don't see her posts; she should munge it so I can see her... -- Best Greg |
A proposition
"kilikini" > wrote > Nancy Young wrote: >> "Gregory Morrow" > wrote >>> >>> Nancy Young wrote: >>>> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because >>>> she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > I'm happy you haven't killfiled me. Thanks, Nancy. (laugh!) Why would I do that. Not intentionally, that's for sure. nancy |
A proposition
"James Silverton" > wrote > one that actually deletes. People whose posts you wish to read can be > specifically allowed. How, exactly, would you do that? nancy |
A proposition
jmcquown wrote on Sun, 7 Oct 2007 07:31:12 -0500:
j> Nancy Young wrote: ??>> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more ??>> pleasant without all that spam and other assorted crap. ??>> Unfortunately, I see that I am missing too many people I ??>> don't want to miss, so I deleted the rule. ??>> ??>> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts ??>> because she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her ??>> address. ??>> ??>> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? ??>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? ??>> ??>> Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. ??>> ??>> nancy j> I completely understand, Nancy! Apparently when I suggested j> the name change it was taken poorly. So, whatever. Now I j> just don't see their posts. At least not until some loser j> gmail and hotmail folks give up the spamming and go away. j> Then maybe I can unblock the domains. Remember when it was j> just AOL? LOL It is possible to use a temporary rule in Outlook Express and other programs to change the text color of a subject. You can then see what the effect will be before replacing the rule with one that actually deletes. People whose posts you wish to read can be specifically allowed. I did not find the number needed for gmail to be very large and you can usually notice a popular new poster by seeing the name in replies. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
A proposition
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:57:00 -0400, "Nancy Young" >
wrote: > >"James Silverton" > wrote > >> one that actually deletes. People whose posts you wish to read can be >> specifically allowed. > >How, exactly, would you do that? > >nancy > I have no problem at all doing this with Agent. I can selectively killfile, or selectively read whoever I want, no matter what domain it is, and no matter if I have killfiled the rest of the domain. Christine |
A proposition
Nancy wrote on Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:57:00 -0400:
??>> one that actually deletes. People whose posts you wish to ??>> read can be specifically allowed. NY> How, exactly, would you do that? I will give you the rules as suggested by Bruce Hagen on the Outlook Express newsgroup. BH> Rule 1: BH> Box 1: Where the from line contains people BH> Box 2: Stop processing more rules BH> Box 3: Click on Contains people and Add the addresses you BH> want to receive one-at-a time. BH> Rule 2: (right below rule 1). BH> Where the from line contains people BH> Delete it and Stop processing more rules BH> Click on Contains People and Add the domain. Ex: @aol.com James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
A proposition
In article >,
"Nancy Young" > wrote: > I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > so I deleted the rule. > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? > > Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. > > nancy Ok, let me know if this simple fix works please? This way I don't have to change my .sig that much. I had it munged anyway to help cut back on spam, but not enough to keep you from killing it. You are not the only one to kill all gmails so it's not a bad idea. :-) -- Peace, Om Remove _ to validate e-mails. "Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein |
A proposition
In article >,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote: > Nancy Young wrote: > > > I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > > so I deleted the rule. > > > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? > > Om is one person who has a gmail address, so I don't see her posts; she > should munge it so I can see her... I just re-did my munging. Please let me know if that worked? -- Peace, Om Remove both _ (underscores) to validate gmail e-mails. "Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein |
A proposition
Omelet wrote: > In article >, > "Nancy Young" > wrote: > > > I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > > so I deleted the rule. > > > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? > > > > Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. > > > > nancy > > Ok, let me know if this simple fix works please? > This way I don't have to change my .sig that much. We see you loud and clear, luv...!!! -- Best Greg |
A proposition
In article >,
"Gregory Morrow" > wrote: > Omelet wrote: > > > In article >, > > "Nancy Young" > wrote: > > > > > I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > > > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > > > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > > > so I deleted the rule. > > > > > > I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because > > > she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. > > > > > > Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > > > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? > > > > > > Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. > > > > > > nancy > > > > Ok, let me know if this simple fix works please? > > This way I don't have to change my .sig that much. > > > We see you loud and clear, luv...!!! Groovy! {{{ hugs }}} -- Peace, Om Remove both _ (underscores) to validate gmail e-mails. "Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein |
A proposition
"James Silverton" > wrote > Nancy wrote on Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:57:00 -0400: > > ??>> one that actually deletes. People whose posts you wish to > ??>> read can be specifically allowed. > > NY> How, exactly, would you do that? > > I will give you the rules as suggested by Bruce Hagen on the Outlook > Express newsgroup. Jim, thanks a million. nancy |
A proposition
"Nancy Young" > wrote in message . .. >I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > so I deleted the rule. You're not the only one who no longer accepts NG messages from any gmail account. I run a couple of readers so looked at this NG from a different service than I usually use. I quick perusal makes it look like postings from Maxine in ri, Litte Malice and Damsel are getting blocked as well as Omlet. A simple munging of from account name will clear-up the problem. <shrug> You think a cooking NG is over-run with gmail trolls and spam? Go look at any active sports NG - especially the forums for NFL teams that have or are going to play the NE Patriots. <shudder> MJB |
A proposition
"MJB" > wrote > "Nancy Young" > wrote >>I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant >> without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, >> I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, >> so I deleted the rule. > > You're not the only one who no longer accepts NG messages from any gmail > account. I run a couple of readers so looked at this NG from a different > service than I usually use. I quick perusal makes it look like postings > from Maxine in ri, Litte Malice and Damsel are getting blocked as well as > Omlet. A simple munging of from account name will clear-up the problem. > > <shrug> > > You think a cooking NG is over-run with gmail trolls and spam? Go look at > any active sports NG - especially the forums for NFL teams that have or > are going to play the NE Patriots. Oh, believe me, I have seen worse too. It just aggravates me how gmail, etc allow themselves to be mass polluters. It sucks. I have added maxine back to my welcome posters, I'll add Little and Dams, too. With any luck I'll catch anyone else when people reply to them and I notice I didn't see their post. Thanks. nancy |
A proposition
MJB wrote: > "Nancy Young" > wrote in message > . .. > >I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > > so I deleted the rule. > > You're not the only one who no longer accepts NG messages from any gmail > account. I run a couple of readers so looked at this NG from a different > service than I usually use. I quick perusal makes it look like postings > from Maxine in ri, Litte Malice and Damsel are getting blocked as well as > Omlet. A simple munging of from account name will clear-up the problem. > > <shrug> > > You think a cooking NG is over-run with gmail trolls and spam? Go look at > any active sports NG - especially the forums for NFL teams that have or are > going to play the NE Patriots. > > <shudder> Not to mention the HUGE amount of Google - sourced Usenet spam emanating primarily from China, India, and Pakistan. Some of it is commercial (Nike...), some of it is moozlim propaganda crap... -- Best Greg |
A proposition
Nancy Young wrote:
> "MJB" > wrote > >> "Nancy Young" > wrote > >>> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant >>> without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, >>> I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, >>> so I deleted the rule. >> You're not the only one who no longer accepts NG messages from any gmail >> account. I run a couple of readers so looked at this NG from a different >> service than I usually use. I quick perusal makes it look like postings >> from Maxine in ri, Litte Malice and Damsel are getting blocked as well as >> Omlet. A simple munging of from account name will clear-up the problem. >> >> <shrug> >> >> You think a cooking NG is over-run with gmail trolls and spam? Go look at >> any active sports NG - especially the forums for NFL teams that have or >> are going to play the NE Patriots. > > Oh, believe me, I have seen worse too. It just aggravates me how > gmail, etc allow themselves to be mass polluters. I think thats the problem with a lot of companies like Google (the spammers friend). They start out with good ideas (Google's policy actually was and is still supposed to be "do no harm"). Then they start making big money and turn into a faceless megacorp. My buddy owns a local business. His elderly parents live in the same town where his business is located. His parents were getting constant visits by sales people looking for his business. Both have health issues so it is a major annoyance. After some detective work he finds that for some reason Google has decided that his business is located at his parent's house and has that information in their business directory. My buddy finds out that you can only submit a request via a webform. He does and gets a canned response of "thank you for contacting megacorp and we may actually look at this some day. After numerous retires he spent the afternoon on the phone trying to actually talk to someone at Google. After a lot of work he actually got someone who insisted that even though it was Google's error and there was no basis for the incorrect entry he would need to prove his information. He submitted the information almost a year ago and the listed information is still incorrect. He has not been able to contact anyone who knows anything and just gets dumped into various peoples voicemail who never call back. It sucks. I have > added maxine back to my welcome posters, I'll add Little and Dams, > too. With any luck I'll catch anyone else when people reply to them > and I notice I didn't see their post. > > Thanks. > > nancy > > |
A proposition
"Nancy Young" > wrote in message . .. >I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > so I deleted the rule. It isn't gmail that's the problem, it's posts coming from Google Groups, whose users may or may not use as their addy. So, how does one killfile all posts from Google Groups, and leave those posting with a gmail address through Outlook Express or another real newsreader? |
A proposition
On Oct 7, 9:18 am, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote: > MJB wrote: > > "Nancy Young" > wrote in message > ... > > >I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant > > > without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, > > > I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, > > > so I deleted the rule. > > > You're not the only one who no longer accepts NG messages from any gmail > > account. I run a couple of readers so looked at this NG from a different > > service than I usually use. I quick perusal makes it look like postings > > from Maxine in ri, Litte Malice and Damsel are getting blocked as well as > > Omlet. A simple munging of from account name will clear-up the problem. > > > <shrug> > > > You think a cooking NG is over-run with gmail trolls and spam? Go look at > > any active sports NG - especially the forums for NFL teams that have or > are > > going to play the NE Patriots. > > > <shudder> > > Not to mention the HUGE amount of Google - sourced Usenet spam emanating > primarily from China, India, and Pakistan. Some of it is commercial > (Nike...), some of it is moozlim propaganda crap... Whenever I see Islamospam, I post back with really offensive stuff, accusing the Prophet's wives of all kind of cuckolding and perversion. > > -- > Best > Greg --Bryan |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:22:20 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> I killfiled the gmail domain, > > You need to kill the Googlegroups domain, not the gmail email > addresses. Not everyone who posts through Google Groups posts > with a Gmail address, and not everyone who uses a Gmail email > address posts through Google Groups. Actually, it worked just fine for my purposes. I don't have any complaints in that regard. > identifies Google Groups posters (and the spam). If you had a > better newsreader, you would also be able to "whitelist" those > regular/useful posters who posts through Google Groups. And apparently I can do that. > ObFood: Eggs over medium on toasted NYTimes no-kneed bread. Last night's leftover Italian sub. nancy |
A proposition
"Peter A" > wrote > says... >> I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant >> without all that spam and other assorted crap. Unfortunately, >> I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss, >> so I deleted the rule. >> >> I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because >> she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address. >> >> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? >> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts? >> >> Best of both worlds ... for me, at least. >> > Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains? It seems odd > to expect others to change the way they post for your convenience. Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything? Or is it just your usual wish to see the worst in everyone speaking? nancy |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:09:09 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: >>> identifies Google Groups posters (and the spam). If you had a >>> better newsreader, you would also be able to "whitelist" those >>> regular/useful posters who posts through Google Groups. >> >> And apparently I can do that. > > There is no way to whitelist people who would otherwise be > killfiled in OE. Really? Have you read James Silverton's post? nancy |
A proposition
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:03:07 -0600, Christine Dabney
> wrote: >I have no problem at all doing this with Agent. I can selectively >killfile, or selectively read whoever I want, no matter what domain it >is, and no matter if I have killfiled the rest of the domain. You have a newer version of Agent than I do. If you think mine could do that, I need a quick lesson on domain killing one of these days (in chat). Currently, the worst spammers (IMO)are those that follow Steve Krammer around, so if they don't migrate their domains maybe I could kill them that way. All the other pipsqueaks are just a right click away from never never land. IMO: It's very satisfying to plonk them into the Bozo Bin. -- See return address to reply by email |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:09:09 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> "Sqwertz" > wrote >> >>> You need to kill the Googlegroups domain, not the gmail email >>> addresses. Not everyone who posts through Google Groups posts >>> with a Gmail address, and not everyone who uses a Gmail email >>> address posts through Google Groups. >> >> Actually, it worked just fine for my purposes. I don't have >> any complaints in that regard. > > I just spot-checked the spam, crosspostings, and forgeries and my > way you kill 40% more of the trash. > >>> identifies Google Groups posters (and the spam). If you had a >>> better newsreader, you would also be able to "whitelist" those >>> regular/useful posters who posts through Google Groups. >> >> And apparently I can do that. > > There is no way to whitelist people who would otherwise be > killfiled in OE. > Of course there is. Just create a rule in which you enter the adresses of the people you want to read. Specify "Execute no other rules". Now move that rule to the top of the list. HTH, Michael Kuettner |
A proposition
On Oct 7, 9:09 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote > > > You need to kill the Googlegroups domain, not the gmail email > > addresses. For some reason, this seems to me to be overly general. -aem |
A proposition
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:54:59 -0400, George >
wrote: >My buddy finds out that you can only submit a request via a webform. He >does and gets a canned response of "thank you for contacting megacorp >and we may actually look at this some day. After numerous retires he >spent the afternoon on the phone trying to actually talk to someone at >Google. After a lot of work he actually got someone who insisted that >even though it was Google's error and there was no basis for the >incorrect entry he would need to prove his information. He submitted the >information almost a year ago and the listed information is still >incorrect. He has not been able to contact anyone who knows anything and >just gets dumped into various peoples voicemail who never call back. Tell me more. Is this incorrect address found on a simple google search or is this an adwords problem? I may be able to find an answer for him. -- See return address to reply by email |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:25:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything? > > "Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? > This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?" Asking and expecting are far different things. If I say to you, maybe you could give me some money? Would I expect to see a check in the mail any time soon? nancy |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:38:29 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> "Sqwertz" > wrote >> >>> There is no way to whitelist people who would otherwise be >>> killfiled in OE. >> >> Really? Have you read James Silverton's post? > > OK. I didn't know that. > > But OE still doesn't allow you killfile based on Message-ID, > which is what really needs to happen here - rather than having > ask people to change the way they display their email address > (Victor, especially, would have a fit over this). I don't give a hoot what Victor thinks about anything. But what you're not understanding or caring about is that killfiling gmail did a great job for my purposes. I was not complaining about that at all. nancy |
A proposition
|
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:03:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> But what you're not understanding or caring about is that >> killfiling gmail did a great job for my purposes. I was not >> complaining about that at all. > > And what you're not understanding is that you're only doing the > job half-assed. I understand that you think it's better, but > it's not nearly as effective as it could be. How about this. I do not see anything that bothers me with gmail banned. There are no messages appearing that are making me with I could killfile them. No worries. Whatsoever. nancy |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:01:31 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> "Sqwertz" > wrote >>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:25:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: >>> >>>> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything? >>> >>> "Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? >>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?" >> >> Asking and expecting are far different things. > > That's picking nits. *Absolutely Not* ... because I do not expect anyone to change their address just because I asked. You are putting expectations on me that were never in my mind. It's only nitpicking if you think I did expect, say, maxine in ri to mung her address or I would be mad or something. I was *asking* if people thought they could see their way to do so. Maybe when *you* ask people for a favor you *expect* them to comply. I do not, so don't put that on me. nancy |
A proposition
Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:50:19 -0700, aem wrote: > >> On Oct 7, 9:09 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote: >>> "Sqwertz" > wrote >>> >>>> You need to kill the Googlegroups domain, not the gmail email >>>> addresses. >> For some reason, this seems to me to be overly general. -aem > > Say again? It's that same thing that the OP thinks she's > accomplishing, but isn't. > > -sw I thought your newsreader could killfile anything posted from giggle groups domain... and yet you reply to aem's post? Oh, wait, you must have him 'white listed'. My apologies. -- Cheers Chatty Cathy Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:26:23 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: > >> "Sqwertz" > wrote >> >>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 13:01:31 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: >>> >>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote >> >>>>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:25:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything? >>>>> >>>>> "Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same? >>>>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?" >>>> >>>> Asking and expecting are far different things. >>> >>> That's picking nits. >> >> *Absolutely Not* ... because I do not expect anyone to change >> their address just because I asked. You are putting expectations >> on me that were never in my mind. > > If you didn't expect [some of] them to abide, then why did you > ask? You must have expected some to change their email addresses > otherwise you wouldn't have asked. I see that you are familiar with what nitpicking is. I do think that some of the people who I'm missing do like me enough that they might do that for me. If they did not want to, for whatever reason, I would not expect them to. Therein lies the difference. Maybe in your life, if you asked for something, you got it. I'm not particularly familiar with that, so, No, when I ask it's simply that. Asking. Not with any expectation that my wish would be granted. Frankly, I have no idea why you are concerning yourself with an issue between me and Peter. He's the one who said I expected anything. I didn't know you two were palsy walsy. You cannot put me in a bad mood. I'm going to visit my brother's brand new twins this afternoon. nancy |
A proposition
Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:43:20 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote: > >> I thought your newsreader could killfile anything posted from giggle >> groups domain... and yet you reply to aem's post? > > I have my newsreader set to mark everything from Google as > already read. This prevents me from seeing all the obvious spam, > at least until somebody responds to it, bringing the entire > thread into view. It also keeps from having to maintain a > whitelist since I'll still the Google posters in a normal thread > (although marked as read - where I can choose to retrieve the > article if I care). > >> Oh, wait, you must have him 'white listed'. My apologies. > > Him? I always thought it was a she <shrug>. Well, I was told by a member of The Cabal (TINC) that it was a "he" <shrug> -- Cheers Chatty Cathy Garlic: the element without which life as we know it would be impossible |
A proposition
"Ophelia" > wrote in message ... > > That is illegal in UK and the perpertrators would end up in prison as > indeed they ought!!!! Nah - I believe in an absolute freedom of speech. The damn fools of the world should be free to say whatever ridiculous, unreasonable, inflammatory things they want. But giving them freedom of speech does not mean the goddamn fools of the world have an equivalent freedom to be heard. MJB |
A proposition
MJB wrote:
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message > ... >> >> That is illegal in UK and the perpertrators would end up in prison as >> indeed they ought!!!! > > Nah - I believe in an absolute freedom of speech. The damn fools of > the world should be free to say whatever ridiculous, unreasonable, > inflammatory things they want. But giving them freedom of speech > does not mean the goddamn fools of the world have an equivalent freedom to > be heard. > MJB It is the law here so there is no choice! |
A proposition
"Sqwertz" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:24:13 -0400, Peter A wrote: > >> Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains? > > Because then you'd be killfiling spammers dozens of times every > day. Spammers don't always use the same email address. > > BTW: She's not kilfiling new articles from particular domians, > only people that happen to advertise certain domains in their > email address. Which a bunch of people don't quite understand. > > -sw Which is why killfiling everyone who uses gmail in their email addy would do absolutely nothing to reduce the spam and offensive articles I usually see, and the infestation in group is quite mild compared to some others! Spammers post via googlegroups, but they use something else in their email addy, like yahoo, aol ,hotmail, or something they make up. There are ways of killing domains, I looked into it briefly but don't have the time to fiddle with it now. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter