Hi group,
I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group and
recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any help on how to
filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use Outlook
Express to download the messages.
Cindy

Cindy wrote:

> Hi group,
> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group and
> recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any help on how
> to filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use Outlook
> Express to download the messages.
> Cindy

For Outlook Express:

http://improve-usenet.org/filters_ex2.html

....if you're willing and able to add a small program to pre-filter the
group(s) by doing the filtering that OE (Thunderbird, etc.) can't do on
its own.

As for Comcast, I don't know how well *they* filter, and the best weapons
are a combination of a strongly-filtering news feed and your own local
filters to nuke what the feed misses (no feeds that I know of filter
Google Groups posts, unfortunately, and there's a TON of spam coming from
there).


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

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:57:21 -0800, Blinky the Shark
> wrote:

>As for Comcast, I don't know how well *they* filter, and the best weapons
>are a combination of a strongly-filtering news feed and your own local
>filters to nuke what the feed misses (no feeds that I know of filter
>Google Groups posts, unfortunately, and there's a TON of spam coming from
>there).

Comcast usenet is via Giganews.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

"Cindy" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hi group,
> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group and
> recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any help on how
> to filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use Outlook
> Express to download the messages.
> Cindy
I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and blocking
doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is blocking all
gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.

Kent

Kent wrote:
> "Cindy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Hi group,
>> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group and
>> recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any help on
>> how to filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I
>> use Outlook Express to download the messages.
>> Cindy
> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed
> by spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and
> blocking doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is
> blocking all gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.

It has eliminated a good 90% of the spam, and a bit of additional filtering
has eliminated all but a few per week.

Just add @gmail.com to the "filter by 'From' " category
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Kent wrote:
>> "Cindy" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Hi group,
>>> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group and
>>> recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any help on
>>> how to filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use
>>> Outlook Express to download the messages. Cindy
>> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
>> spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and
>> blocking doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is
>> blocking all gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.
>
> It has eliminated a good 90% of the spam, and a bit of additional
> filtering has eliminated all but a few per week.
>
> Just add @gmail.com to the "filter by 'From' " category

Simplify. gmail isn't enough? Are you worried about blocking
gmail.net, gmail.org, gmail.tv, gmail.ca, gmail.......well, you get the
picture.


--
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:
>
>> Kent wrote:
>>> "Cindy" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> Hi group,
>>>> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group
>>>> and recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any
>>>> help on how to filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I
>>>> stated I use Outlook Express to download the messages. Cindy
>>> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being
>>> destroyed by spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some
>>> fashion and blocking doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said
>>> recently he is blocking all gmail. I wonder what effect that has
>>> had.
>>
>> It has eliminated a good 90% of the spam, and a bit of additional
>> filtering has eliminated all but a few per week.
>>
>> Just add @gmail.com to the "filter by 'From' " category
>
> Simplify. gmail isn't enough? Are you worried about blocking
> gmail.net, gmail.org, gmail.tv, gmail.ca, gmail.......well, you get
> the picture.
>
I'm with Dave on this one. While it's true people also spam from yahoo &
hotmail, most of it lately comes from gmail.com users. Most of them are too
stupid to munge their addresses. The one thing I really like about Windows
Mail (which replaces OE) is it provides the ability for me to block out the
gmail.com domain BUT I can add specific people to my Safe Senders list. So
even if they have gmail as their mail client I can add them and see their
posts. Or not It's not difficult to add the other spammers to the
blocked senders list.

Jill

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Kent wrote:
>>>> "Cindy" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> Hi group,
>>>>> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group
>>>>> and recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any
>>>>> help on how to filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I
>>>>> stated I use Outlook Express to download the messages. Cindy
>>>> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed
>>>> by spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and
>>>> blocking doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is
>>>> blocking all gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.
>>>
>>> It has eliminated a good 90% of the spam, and a bit of additional
>>> filtering has eliminated all but a few per week.
>>>
>>> Just add @gmail.com to the "filter by 'From' " category
>>
>> Simplify. gmail isn't enough? Are you worried about blocking
>> gmail.net, gmail.org, gmail.tv, gmail.ca, gmail.......well, you get the
>> picture.
>>
> I'm with Dave on this one. While it's true people also spam from yahoo
> & hotmail, most of it lately comes from gmail.com users. Most of them
> are too stupid to munge their addresses. The one thing I really like
> about Windows Mail (which replaces OE) is it provides the ability for me
> to block out the gmail.com domain BUT I can add specific people to my
> Safe Senders list.

That's a normal ability with the better news clients. Been a feature
forever. You just put the white-listed people above the kill filter
in the rules list -- rules are applied in order so if a post matches the
white list it's accepted without ever getting down to the kill rule.

> So even if they have gmail as their mail client I can add them and see
> their posts. Or not It's not difficult to add the other spammers to
> the blocked senders list.

Still won't kill all of GG spam, which is the larger share. But I realize
you're intent on filtering gmail, so that's all I'll say.


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

Kent wrote:

> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
> spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and blocking
> doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is blocking all
> gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.
>
> Kent

I seem to have no problems filtering spam out, using choice words in the
subject line to filter. As a new "catchword" to the spam comes up, I
just add it to the list. For example "handbags" "shoes" "Nike" and so
on. It has worked very well for me.
What I find more annoying is all the OT threads started here (not to be
confused with "thread drift") which clog up the place. Everyone who
tosses one up seems to think their own post is somehow exempt from
netiquette?

Goomba38 wrote:

> Kent wrote:
>
>> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
>> spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and
>> blocking doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is
>> blocking all gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.
>>
>> Kent
>
> I seem to have no problems filtering spam out, using choice words in the
> subject line to filter. As a new "catchword" to the spam comes up, I just
> add it to the list. For example "handbags" "shoes" "Nike" and so on. It
> has worked very well for me.

So you have to keep changing your rules. Bummer. I don't have to, and I
see no spam.


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

Blinky the Shark wrote:

>> I seem to have no problems filtering spam out, using choice words in the
>> subject line to filter. As a new "catchword" to the spam comes up, I just
>> add it to the list. For example "handbags" "shoes" "Nike" and so on. It
>> has worked very well for me.
>
> So you have to keep changing your rules. Bummer. I don't have to, and I
> see no spam.
>
Not really. Perhaps once or twice a week does something pop in. One
addition to the filter list then takes care of it. Hardly any effort.

Goomba38 wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>> I seem to have no problems filtering spam out, using choice words in
>>> the subject line to filter. As a new "catchword" to the spam comes up,
>>> I just add it to the list. For example "handbags" "shoes" "Nike" and so
>>> on. It has worked very well for me.
>>
>> So you have to keep changing your rules. Bummer. I don't have to, and
>> I see no spam.
>>
> Not really. Perhaps once or twice a week does something pop in. One
> addition to the filter list then takes care of it. Hardly any effort.

That's more than "never".

ObFood: I'm skipping dinner (and chat) tonight.


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

Goomba38 wrote:
(cut)

> What I find more annoying is all the OT threads started here (not to be
> confused with "thread drift") which clog up the place. Everyone who
> tosses one up seems to think their own post is somehow exempt from
> netiquette?

I don't know which is more aggravating. But, I would say the people who
are to lazy to trim their posts. A 50 line message to add one or t words
or a short sentence.

willille wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote:
>
> > What I find more annoying is all the OT threads started here (not to be
> > confused with "thread drift") which clog up the place. Everyone who
> > tosses one up seems to think their own post is somehow exempt from
> > netiquette?
>
> I don't know which is more aggravating. But, I would say the people who
> are to lazy to trim their posts. A 50 line message to add one or t words
> or a short sentence.

From an expert who has just got use of a computer a month ago and to
date has made all of 6 posts...

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

willille wrote:

> I don't know which is more aggravating. But, I would say the people who
> are to lazy to trim their posts. A 50 line message to add one or t words
> or a short sentence.

Some people are unaware of the art of post-trimming. You are correct, it
is annoying to scroll to the bottom of a message, only to see a
one-liner, or a "me too" response.

If I do not trim a post, it is because someone posted a recipe, and I
dislike trimming recipes.

Becca

Ob Food: We had leftover fried turkey and ham, after Easter, so I put
most of it in the freezer. I love the Reynold's Handi-Vac.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:04:25 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>As for myself, sometimes I enjoy thread drift. It can be interesting.

and that's when I put a filter on the thread. I'll catch it again if
someone gets smart and renames the drifted thread.... something that
isn't done much anymore.


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
that is not entirely true. Most... and I say "most"
> loosely, people put OT in the subject header and sometime people with use
> PING in the subject header. Since you seem to have spam caught with your
> "catchword" technique you should be able to filter out most of those. Now
> thread drift is a different issue altogether. As for myself, sometimes I
> enjoy thread drift. It can be interesting.
>
> Michael

Michael, I have NO problem with thread drift. That is something that
evolves and as you say be very interesting. My complaint is those OT
post that started out OT. Being noted "OT" or not, they do not belong
and yet everyone who tosses one out there (such as jokes, internet
warnings, political statements, non-food related news events) all think
they're exempt or witty enough to be forgiven such transgression. While
some won't speak out here, many do privately and it isn't just me that
gets annoyed.

ObFood- I like to make these onion waffles to go with creamed chicken-

* Exported from MasterCook *

Onion Waffles

Recipe By :Oster Waffle Maker Co.
Serving Size : 4 Preparation Time :0:10
Categories : Breads

Amount Measure Ingredient -- Preparation Method
-------- ------------ --------------------------------
2 cups biscuit mix
1 egg
1 1/3 cups milk
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
2 tablespoons dry onion soup mix

Preheat waffle maker. Put all ingredients into a large mixer bowl. Beat
on low until dry ingredients are moistened. Pour 1/2 cup batter over
grids. Close waffle maker, bake until golden, 2 1/2 to 3 minutes. Repeat.
Serve while hot with Tuna a la King or any creamed entree.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:39:43 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>My complaint is those OT post that started out OT.

Good grief, Goomba. Filter out OT threads. How hard is that?


--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:
>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> that is not entirely true. Most... and I say "most"
>> loosely, people put OT in the subject header and sometime people with use
>> PING in the subject header. Since you seem to have spam caught with your
>> "catchword" technique you should be able to filter out most of those. Now
>> thread drift is a different issue altogether. As for myself, sometimes I
>> enjoy thread drift. It can be interesting.
>>
>> Michael
>
>Michael, I have NO problem with thread drift. That is something that
>evolves and as you say be very interesting. My complaint is those OT
>post that started out OT. Being noted "OT" or not, they do not belong
>and yet everyone who tosses one out there (such as jokes, internet
>warnings, political statements, non-food related news events) all think
>they're exempt or witty enough to be forgiven such transgression. While
>some won't speak out here, many do privately and it isn't just me that
>gets annoyed.

Another problem with the "OT" header is that it tends to get broken into
multiple threads for threads of any length, one always WITHOUT the
original "OT: " because is-it-Outlook-Express? assumes it's a "" and
makes it go away. Still off topic but without a nice regexp for
newsreaders to filter on.

As for thread drift: please change the subject so people who wouldn't be
interested in the original can re-evaluate and perhaps participate.

ObFood: easter dinner was roast lamb (with yummy herbs), green salad,
excellent bread with excellent olive oil, and Nigella Lawson's
burnt-butter cupcakes for dessert. My friends took the peanut butter cup
cookies and Truffles a la Kay Hartman home with them to freeze.

Charlotte
--

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:39:43 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> that is not entirely true. Most... and I say "most"
>> loosely, people put OT in the subject header and sometime people with use
>> PING in the subject header. Since you seem to have spam caught with your
>> "catchword" technique you should be able to filter out most of those. Now
>> thread drift is a different issue altogether. As for myself, sometimes I
>> enjoy thread drift. It can be interesting.
>>
>> Michael
>
>Michael, I have NO problem with thread drift. That is something that
>evolves and as you say be very interesting. My complaint is those OT
>post that started out OT. Being noted "OT" or not, they do not belong
>and yet everyone who tosses one out there (such as jokes, internet
>warnings, political statements, non-food related news events) all think
>they're exempt or witty enough to be forgiven such transgression. While
>some won't speak out here, many do privately and it isn't just me that
>gets annoyed.
>

i don't understand your complaint here. if they're marked 'OT:,'
can't you filter them out/not read them?

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> i don't understand your complaint here. if they're marked 'OT:,'
> can't you filter them out/not read them?
>
> your pal,
> blake

What makes them any different from spam then? Is it cooking related?
Doesn't it give a newcomer the idea that "anything goes" and is welcome
or appropriate? <shrug>

Kent wrote:

>
> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
> spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and blocking
> doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is blocking all
> gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.
>

For awhile I had things under control filtering out handbags, watches, replica,
cialis, wholesale and things like that, but they kept changing. The one constant
was @gmail. I filtered that and the spam stopped.

"Kent" wrote
> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
> spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and blocking
> doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is blocking all
> gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.

Kent, immediate reducton of about 75% of the spam. I also kill @163.com

"cshenk" > wrote

> "Kent" wrote
>> I think most of us have the same problem. This NG is being destroyed by
>> spam. Senders are changing their names daily in some fashion and blocking
>> doesn't work, at least for me. Dave Bugg said recently he is blocking all
>> gmail. I wonder what effect that has had.
>
> Kent, immediate reducton of about 75% of the spam. I also kill @163.com

What's amazing to me are those spammers who change their address
to escape filters. Hello, I am blocking you because you're ****ing me
off and I'm sure as hell not going to buy knock-off watches from you!

nancy

"Nancy Young" wrote in message

>> Kent, immediate reducton of about 75% of the spam. I also kill @163.com
>
> What's amazing to me are those spammers who change their address
> to escape filters. Hello, I am blocking you because you're ****ing me
> off and I'm sure as hell not going to buy knock-off watches from you!

I guess they keep hoping we'll click on the links by accident.

On Mar 23, 7:09�pm, "Cindy" > wrote:
> Hi group,
> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. �I used to read the group and
> recently returned. �But the Spam!!!! �There is so much. �Any help on how to
> filter out the spam??? �Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use Outlook
> Express to download the messages.
> Cindy

Doesn't it make you want to take a baseball bat and whack all these
spammers upside the head?

" >> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 7:09�pm, "Cindy" > wrote:
>> Hi group,
>> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. �I used to read the group and
>> recently returned. �But the Spam!!!! �There is so much. �Any help on how to
>> filter out the spam??? �Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use Outlook
>> Express to download the messages.
>> Cindy
>
> Doesn't it make you want to take a baseball bat and whack all these
> spammers upside the head?

I want to whack all the people who think it's cute to respond to it.

-sw

Sqwertz wrote:

> " >> wrote:

> > Doesn't it make you want to take a baseball bat and whack all these
> > spammers upside the head?
>
> I want to whack all the people who think it's cute to respond to it.

That's another place where specific filters works better. Spam and spam
followups are blocked.





Brian

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

On 24 Mar 2008 16:27:57 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>That's another place where specific filters works better. Spam and spam
>followups are blocked.

Ditto.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

Cindy > wrote:

> I use Outlook Express as my newsreader. I used to read the group and
> recently returned. But the Spam!!!! There is so much. Any help on how to
> filter out the spam??? Comcast is my ISP and as I stated I use Outlook
> Express to download the messages.

If you want to filter out most of the spam, not just a fairly large part
of it, please ignore all the unqualified comments on killfiling gmail.

As posted in another thread: it is groups.google that is the real
problem, and there is a lot of other-than-gmail spam coming from there.
There is a lot of spam posted with such addresses as yahoo.com,
yahoo.co.in, yahoo.co.cn, 163.com, 126.com, cnreplicas.com,
aaa-replica-watch.com, hotmail.com, etc. Most are posted from
groups.google. Spam posted with a gmail address is almost invariably
posted from groups.google, too.

If, for some reason, you cannot figure out how to filter on
"Message-ID:" (solution is to install newsproxy - see the link in
Blinky's .sig), filter on "Organization:" (the string to filter is
"http://groups.google.com", or on "User-Agent:" (the string to filter is
"G2/1.0"). It is easy. If you cannot do even that, consider installing
something better than the unspeakable Outlook Express disaster.

ObFood: Sautéed calf's kidney, and the same thing with port, both from
_Cooking in Ten Minutes_ by Edouard de Pomiane.

Victor

Sautéed Calf's Kidney

Buy seven ounces of calf's kidney for two people. It is very expensive,
I warn you. Have it cut into pieces the size of a small nut. Clean
four ounces of mushrooms. Cut them into slices without peeling them.

Heat some butter in a frying pan until it smokes. Put in the kidney.
Cook for five minutes. Add the mushrooms. Salt. Pepper. Make a
blazing fire, so that the water from the mushrooms evaporates. Put on a
hot dish and serve.

Sautéed Calf's Kidney with Port

Prepare some sautéed kidney. At the moment when you add the mushrooms
pour three dessertspoonfuls of port into the pan. Serve when it is
half-evaporated.

Victor Sack wrote:


> As posted in another thread: it is groups.google that is the real
> problem, and there is a lot of other-than-gmail spam coming from
> there.

We go round and round on this. If you don't care that you are blocking
some legitimate users, then go for it. The same goes for the gmail
suggestion.




Brian

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

Default User > wrote:

> We go round and round on this. If you don't care that you are blocking
> some legitimate users, then go for it. The same goes for the gmail
> suggestion.

No, it mostly has to do with killfiling actual spam, loads of it.
Killfiling google.groups is a lot more efficient than killfiling gmail.

Victor

Victor Sack wrote:
> Default User > wrote:
>
>> We go round and round on this. If you don't care that you are
>> blocking some legitimate users, then go for it. The same goes for
>> the gmail suggestion.
>
> No, it mostly has to do with killfiling actual spam, loads of it.
> Killfiling google.groups is a lot more efficient than killfiling
> gmail.

By a small percentage. But then I don't have to futz around with
proxy-anything. The few that are left are easy to deal with using regular KF
filtering.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > No, it mostly has to do with killfiling actual spam, loads of it.
> > Killfiling google.groups is a lot more efficient than killfiling
> > gmail.
>
> By a small percentage.

The small percentage is about 30%, in fact, and is bound to grow larger.
Some people here call spammers stupid, while they are anything but.
After all, they managed to defeat Google's not inconsiderable defenses
against automated posting, whereas people calling them stupid cannot
even install a good newsreader or find a kind soul to help them.

As to myself, while I do think that the idea of a UDP of groups.google
is long overdue, in my own small ways I do not drop the atomic bomb and
killfile neither groups.google, nor gmail. I filter or not on my own
terms, and I know enough to do it efficiently.

> But then I don't have to futz around with
> proxy-anything. The few that are left are easy to deal with using regular KF
> filtering.

Your line length is too long; it should be 72 characters by default.

"Futzing around" with proxy-anything, as you put it, is much easier than
having to constantly adjust your filters and, as I said, it is is bound
to get more difficult in the future.

Here is how to set up NewsProxy and other info:
<http://www.nfilter.org/faq.html>.

And here are some ready-made filters:
<http://bearware.info/NewsProxy/newsproxy.html>.

ObFood: Soupe de carottes, from _The Cuisine of the Sun_ by Mireille
Johnston.

Victor

Soup de Carottes
A Delicate Carrot Soup

This light and refreshing soup is easy to prepare in any season. If you
use big winter carrots, add a lump of sugar during cooking.

For 6 people

1 quart water
salt
1 bay leaf
4 large or medium-sized carrots
1 large potato
1 large onion
freshly ground black pepper
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 tablespoon chopped parsley (optional)
2 slices firm white bread for making croutons, optional

Bring water to a boil and add salt and bay leaf. Peel and slice the
vegetables, then add them to the boiling water and simmer for 15
minutes. Pass through a Mouli food mill into a saucepan. Add pepper
(and sugar if desired), and check the seasoning.

Heat for 3 minutes. Sprinkle with olive oil and serve.

You may serve the soup on croutons and sprinkle it with parsley at the
last minute to add color, but I like the very simple, unadorned version.

Default User wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
>
>
>> As posted in another thread: it is groups.google that is the
>> real problem, and there is a lot of other-than-gmail spam
>> coming from there.
>
> We go round and round on this. If you don't care that you are
> blocking some legitimate users, then go for it. The same goes
> for the gmail suggestion.

Right. And since the GG filter kills the most spam, the solution
should be obvious.

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

"Default User" > wrote

> We go round and round on this. If you don't care that you are blocking
> some legitimate users, then go for it. The same goes for the gmail
> suggestion.

But since I can exclude the posters I want to see from the
rule, I think it's the best of both worlds. Any time I see I'm
missing someone, I add another rule. It works well for me.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Default User" > wrote
>
>> We go round and round on this. If you don't care that you are
>> blocking some legitimate users, then go for it. The same goes for
>> the gmail suggestion.
>
> But since I can exclude the posters I want to see from the
> rule, I think it's the best of both worlds. Any time I see I'm
> missing someone, I add another rule. It works well for me.

Yup.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:21:59 +0100, (Victor Sack)
wrote:

>If you want to filter out most of the spam, not just a fairly large part
>of it, please ignore all the unqualified comments on killfiling gmail.
>
>As posted in another thread: it is groups.google that is the real
>problem, and there is a lot of other-than-gmail spam coming from there.
>There is a lot of spam posted with such addresses as yahoo.com,
>yahoo.co.in, yahoo.co.cn, 163.com, 126.com, cnreplicas.com,
>aaa-replica-watch.com, hotmail.com, etc. Most are posted from
>groups.google. Spam posted with a gmail address is almost invariably
>posted from groups.google, too.

I haven't set up a private group with google.groups. However, if I go
to rec.food.cooking via google > groups > popular groups and post from
there - is that considered posting via the dreaded google groups?
Sometimes it's necessary to do.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smile first

<sf> wrote
>
> I haven't set up a private group with google.groups. However, if I go
> to rec.food.cooking via google > groups > popular groups and post from
> there - is that considered posting via the dreaded google groups?
> Sometimes it's necessary to do.

Thats why alot of us dont filter by 'google.groups'. Lots of valid folks
use it.

One time on Usenet, "cshenk" > said:
> <sf> wrote
> >
> > I haven't set up a private group with google.groups. However, if I go
> > to rec.food.cooking via google > groups > popular groups and post from
> > there - is that considered posting via the dreaded google groups?
> > Sometimes it's necessary to do.
>
> Thats why alot of us dont filter by 'google.groups'. Lots of valid folks
> use it.

Yup, exactly...

--
Jani in WA