Dave Bugg wrote:

> brother mouse wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that I've
>>> decided to block the domain. There are several of you that I really
>>> enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail and whose posts I
>>> will miss (guys, please switch).
>>
>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
>> @gmail.com return addresses.
>
> You assumed wrong.

He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by filtering
on...well...GG.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> brother mouse wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that I've
>>>> decided to block the domain. There are several of you that I really
>>>> enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail and whose posts I
>>>> will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>
>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
>>> @gmail.com return addresses.
>>
>> You assumed wrong.
>
> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
> filtering on...well...GG.

Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is with
' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> brother mouse wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that I've
>>>>> decided to block the domain. There are several of you that I really
>>>>> enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail and whose posts I
>>>>> will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>>
>>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
>>>> @gmail.com return addresses.
>>>
>>> You assumed wrong.
>>
>> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
>> filtering on...well...GG.
>
> Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is with
> ' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.

Tons and *tons* of clued people use gmail and show gmail email addresses,
who are not the GG spammers that are the real problem.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> brother mouse wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that I've
>>>>>> decided to block the domain. There are several of you that I really
>>>>>> enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail and whose posts I
>>>>>> will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
>>>>> @gmail.com return addresses.
>>>>
>>>> You assumed wrong.
>>>
>>> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
>>> filtering on...well...GG.
>>
>> Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is with
>> ' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.
>
> Tons and *tons* of clued people use gmail and show gmail email addresses,
> who are not the GG spammers that are the real problem.
^ and knuckleheads

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> brother mouse wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that
>>>>>> I've decided to block the domain. There are several of you that
>>>>>> I really enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail and
>>>>>> whose posts I will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
>>>>> @gmail.com return addresses.
>>>>
>>>> You assumed wrong.
>>>
>>> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
>>> filtering on...well...GG.
>>
>> Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is
>> with ' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.
>
> Tons and *tons* of clued people use gmail and show gmail email
> addresses, who are not the GG spammers that are the real problem.

Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at least 80%
since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours? It hasn't removed
it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the posts from the spam.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> brother mouse wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that I've
>>>>>>> decided to block the domain. There are several of you that I
>>>>>>> really enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail and whose
>>>>>>> posts I will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
>>>>>> @gmail.com return addresses.
>>>>>
>>>>> You assumed wrong.
>>>>
>>>> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
>>>> filtering on...well...GG.
>>>
>>> Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is
>>> with ' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.
>>
>> Tons and *tons* of clued people use gmail and show gmail email
>> addresses, who are not the GG spammers that are the real problem.
>
> Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at least
> 80% since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours? It hasn't
> removed it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the posts from
> the spam.

Because many GG spammers do use gmail accounts. Nothing I said is in
conflict with that. Yes, you've set off a car bomb at the mall and hit
*some* of the GG spammers. And non-GG spammer bystanders who use gmail.
Collateral damage, as they say. Targeting GG spammers, not gmail users,
gets *all* of the GG spammers. And none of the many innocent gmail users.
Because, see, you're actually filtering *on* GG. If you're happy with an
80% improvement (and don't mind all of the friendly-fire kills you'll make
on non-GG-spammer gmail users), go for it. Just don't think your car bomb
at the market is the sniper rifle that real GG filtering is.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> brother mouse wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that
>>>>>>>> I've decided to block the domain. There are several of you
>>>>>>>> that I really enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail
>>>>>>>> and whose posts I will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that
>>>>>>> have @gmail.com return addresses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You assumed wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
>>>>> filtering on...well...GG.
>>>>
>>>> Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is
>>>> with ' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.
>>>
>>> Tons and *tons* of clued people use gmail and show gmail email
>>> addresses, who are not the GG spammers that are the real problem.
>>
>> Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at
>> least 80% since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours?
>> It hasn't removed it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the
>> posts from the spam.
>
> Because many GG spammers do use gmail accounts. Nothing I said is in
> conflict with that.

But you keep referring to it as if it makes a difference to me. Whether
these are GG users, Gmail users or spammers who fake gmail.com doesn't
matter one wit, the result is the same.

> And none of the many
> innocent gmail users. Because, see, you're actually filtering *on*
> GG. If you're happy with an 80% improvement (and don't mind all of
> the friendly-fire kills you'll make on non-GG-spammer gmail users),
> go for it.

I don't mind a bit. It puzzles me as to why what I do matters to you. Do
what you want, I'll do what I find the most expediant.

> Just don't think your car bomb at the market is the
> sniper rifle that real GG filtering is.

So what? I've accomplished what I wanted to accomplish.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote

> But you keep referring to it as if it makes a difference to me. Whether
> these are GG users, Gmail users or spammers who fake gmail.com doesn't
> matter one wit, the result is the same.

Dave, I've had excellent results by blocking gmail, too.
Luckily I can exclude the posters I want to see from that
rule as I find out who they are.

Blocking gmail does a fine job of cleaning up the spammers, etc.

nancy

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> brother mouse wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gmail spammers have so loaded down usenet with junk spam that
>>>>>>>>> I've decided to block the domain. There are several of you
>>>>>>>>> that I really enjoy reading, like Om and HeyBub, who use Gmail
>>>>>>>>> and whose posts I will miss (guys, please switch).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that
>>>>>>>> have @gmail.com return addresses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You assumed wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He does, however understand how to best filter GG posters -- by
>>>>>> filtering on...well...GG.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two different issues. I don't want to filter GG users. The spam is
>>>>> with ' headers, and that is what I've eliminated.
>>>>
>>>> Tons and *tons* of clued people use gmail and show gmail email
>>>> addresses, who are not the GG spammers that are the real problem.
>>>
>>> Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at
>>> least 80% since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours?
>>> It hasn't removed it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the
>>> posts from the spam.
>>
>> Because many GG spammers do use gmail accounts. Nothing I said is in
>> conflict with that.
>
> But you keep referring to it as if it makes a difference to me. Whether
> these are GG users, Gmail users or spammers who fake gmail.com doesn't
> matter one wit, the result is the same.
>
>> And none of the many
>> innocent gmail users. Because, see, you're actually filtering *on*
>> GG. If you're happy with an 80% improvement (and don't mind all of
>> the friendly-fire kills you'll make on non-GG-spammer gmail users),
>> go for it.
>
> I don't mind a bit. It puzzles me as to why what I do matters to you. Do
> what you want, I'll do what I find the most expediant.
>
>> Just don't think your car bomb at the market is the
>> sniper rifle that real GG filtering is.
>
> So what? I've accomplished what I wanted to accomplish.

A partially effective, sloppy filter. And you're welcome to it.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

The Kat wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:29:39 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>
>> But you keep referring to it as if it makes a difference to me.
>> Whether these are GG users, Gmail users or spammers who fake
>> gmail.com doesn't matter one wit, the result is the same.
>
> Yes, you have removed MANY good posts

Not really. A few perhaps. Try not to take it personally.

> and yet you continue to do what you accuse others of, and abuse this
> group.

And how's that, pray tell?

> But there's an EASY fix for that, without affecting the GOOD users.
>
> Plonk.

Uh, oh. Now I'm sad. I guess s/he took it personally. :-D

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article .net>,
Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> Dave Bugg wrote:

> > Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at least
> > 80% since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours? It hasn't
> > removed it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the posts from
> > the spam.
>
> Because many GG spammers do use gmail accounts. Nothing I said is in
> conflict with that. Yes, you've set off a car bomb at the mall and hit
> *some* of the GG spammers. And non-GG spammer bystanders who use gmail.

Very true, and to my tastes, not desirable. But that's just my personal
preference.


> Collateral damage, as they say. Targeting GG spammers, not gmail users,
> gets *all* of the GG spammers. And none of the many innocent gmail users.

But it's still a car bomb, just in a different place. You're killing
all the legitimate, non-spamming GG users. There are many people who
can only access newsgroups through GG, whether due to traveling and
using borrowed computers, or whatever. I'm leaving next week for 30
days. I'm not willing to use GG, or install software on a PC to read
groups (I'm a Mac user). So you just won't see me here. I will neither
read nor post (unless I change my mind and take my Mac laptop).


> Because, see, you're actually filtering *on* GG. If you're happy with an
> 80% improvement (and don't mind all of the friendly-fire kills you'll make
> on non-GG-spammer gmail users), go for it. Just don't think your car bomb
> at the market is the sniper rifle that real GG filtering is.

I don't agree that it's a sniper rifle. I have a sniper rifle. It's my
brain. It's a lot more work, but most of my filters are in my head. I
prefer it that way, at least for now. If my ISP automatically filtered
on GG I would object.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> > Collateral damage, as they say. Targeting GG spammers, not gmail
> > users, gets all of the GG spammers. And none of the many innocent
> > gmail users.
>
> But it's still a car bomb, just in a different place. You're killing
> all the legitimate, non-spamming GG users. There are many people who
> can only access newsgroups through GG, whether due to traveling and
> using borrowed computers, or whatever.

I'm with you. I don't really see any moral highground with either Dave
or Blinky. Any domain filtering, whether email or news service, is
going to block legitimate users. The collateral damage may be
acceptable, of course.

I am a bit spoiled by NIN's good spam control. That, coupled with my
robust set of filters, results in so little that I barely notice it
even in a group like this. I'm sure domain filtering would be more
attractive if I were blasted with spam.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

The Kat wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:57:15 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>
>> But it's still a car bomb, just in a different place. You're killing
>> all the legitimate, non-spamming GG users. There are many people who
>> can only access newsgroups through GG, whether due to traveling and
>> using borrowed computers, or whatever.
>
> AOL users (yes, there ARE good AOL users), users of other low-cost
> dialup ISP, and others.
>
> But some people are just to lazy to learn to use filters,
> and others are too stupid to get a decent Newsreader (like FREE
> Agent).

Still taking things personally, eh?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:56:19 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at least 80%
>since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours? It hasn't removed
>it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the posts from the spam.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I use commercial Agent for newsgroups
and had even sent a query to their help desk on how to filter the
gmail domain. Their answer was complicated and less than useful,
essentially saying I couldn't. Not a computer guru (just a legal one),
but after reading your post I did Ctrl+K and entered @gmail.com and
all the gmail posts were marked. Bingo.

Muchas gracias,
Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:56:19 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>> Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at
>> least 80% since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours?
>> It hasn't removed it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the
>> posts from the spam.
>
> Thank you, thank you, thank you. I use commercial Agent for newsgroups
> and had even sent a query to their help desk on how to filter the
> gmail domain. Their answer was complicated and less than useful,
> essentially saying I couldn't. Not a computer guru (just a legal one),
> but after reading your post I did Ctrl+K and entered @gmail.com and
> all the gmail posts were marked. Bingo.
>
> Muchas gracias,
> Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

You're welcome, Terry.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:47:45 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:56:19 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
>fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>Then why has my downloaded spam count gone down on this NG by at least 80%
>>since I have filtered for @gmail.com in the last 24 hours? It hasn't removed
>>it all, but at least now I can easily pick out the posts from the spam.
>
>Thank you, thank you, thank you. I use commercial Agent for newsgroups
>and had even sent a query to their help desk on how to filter the
>gmail domain. Their answer was complicated and less than useful,
>essentially saying I couldn't. Not a computer guru (just a legal one),
>but after reading your post I did Ctrl+K and entered @gmail.com and
>all the gmail posts were marked. Bingo.

You can do the same by right-clicking in the field and open filters.

Lou