As a well-known AFW busybody, I've periodically taken it upon myself to post
courtesy reminders. There is more valuable info at
http://www.virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/guide.htm, as St. Helier pointed out.

First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit. Our
website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email address) can
reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to anonymous
complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use their real
names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email address. As
to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much energy into
conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As they say,
YMMV.

A few other points (mostly derived from previous courtesy posts):
1) This is Usenet , a tool for discussion. Don't expect to post something w/o
possibility of someone refuting it.
2) Please keep in mind that many of the contributors to alt.food.wine do not
speak English as their first language.
3) Let's try to avoid personal comments. If you don't like someone, filter
their posts. The details of how to do that vary according to newsreader
software, but tutorials exist on the Web for employing filters in all the
popular newsreaders.
4) New Folks: you're here to learn, right? So if someone who has been on AFW
for years and serious about wine for 30+ corrects you, learn from it, don't get
your feelings hurt.
5) Old folks : remember you were new (to wine and AFW) at some point, too.
Correct if need be, but let's try to do so graciously.
6) Personally, I find it less than helpful to make generalizations about people
based on where they live, what they do outside wine, etc.
7) No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the simplicity or
elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big enough for someone to
have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to have rack of lamb with a fine
Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to read about a meal you wouldn't eat
yourself?
8)Newbies: we welcome your participation (this is speaking as someone who has
participated for a few years, I'm neither a true old-timer or a newbie). But as
in ANY social situation, whether on or off line, it is wisest not to attack a
respected member of a community while a newbie, it really won't win you any
points. It is a time-honored tradition that one should lurk for a while before
posting to get a feel re tone of a group.

So there. I'm sure I've offended a couple of old-timers and a couple of
newbies, but hope the rest of you can take these remarks to heart. I don't
claim to be immune to digression (remember the "collectors recork wine every 10
years/chianti cannot be drunk young/Europeans are all wine sophisticates" guy?
I got a little over-involved); all I'm asking is that we try to keep these
guidelines in mind.

* mentioning Craig Winchell made me think that I hope many folks have enjoyed
his fine wines over last few nights, and reminded me to wish you all happy
Passover or Easter, as the case may be.

Best,
Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

Post well recieved. Thanks

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> As a well-known AFW busybody, I've periodically taken it upon myself to
post
> courtesy reminders. There is more valuable info at
> http://www.virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/guide.htm, as St. Helier pointed
out.
>
> First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit. Our
> website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email address)
can
> reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to
anonymous
> complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use their
real
> names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
> Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email
address. As
> to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much energy
into
> conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As they
say,
> YMMV.
>
> A few other points (mostly derived from previous courtesy posts):
> 1) This is Usenet , a tool for discussion. Don't expect to post something
w/o
> possibility of someone refuting it.
> 2) Please keep in mind that many of the contributors to alt.food.wine do
not
> speak English as their first language.
> 3) Let's try to avoid personal comments. If you don't like someone, filter
> their posts. The details of how to do that vary according to newsreader
> software, but tutorials exist on the Web for employing filters in all the
> popular newsreaders.
> 4) New Folks: you're here to learn, right? So if someone who has been on
AFW
> for years and serious about wine for 30+ corrects you, learn from it,
don't get
> your feelings hurt.
> 5) Old folks : remember you were new (to wine and AFW) at some point, too.
> Correct if need be, but let's try to do so graciously.
> 6) Personally, I find it less than helpful to make generalizations about
people
> based on where they live, what they do outside wine, etc.
> 7) No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
simplicity or
> elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big enough for
someone to
> have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to have rack of lamb with a
fine
> Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to read about a meal you wouldn't eat
> yourself?
> 8)Newbies: we welcome your participation (this is speaking as someone who
has
> participated for a few years, I'm neither a true old-timer or a newbie).
But as
> in ANY social situation, whether on or off line, it is wisest not to
attack a
> respected member of a community while a newbie, it really won't win you
any
> points. It is a time-honored tradition that one should lurk for a while
before
> posting to get a feel re tone of a group.
>
> So there. I'm sure I've offended a couple of old-timers and a couple of
> newbies, but hope the rest of you can take these remarks to heart. I don't
> claim to be immune to digression (remember the "collectors recork wine
every 10
> years/chianti cannot be drunk young/Europeans are all wine sophisticates"
guy?
> I got a little over-involved); all I'm asking is that we try to keep these
> guidelines in mind.
>
> * mentioning Craig Winchell made me think that I hope many folks have
enjoyed
> his fine wines over last few nights, and reminded me to wish you all happy
> Passover or Easter, as the case may be.
>
> Best,
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

Dale, I recently removed my real email address when I started to receive to
much spam on regular email. Some one told me that the newgroups are scanned
and addresses are some how collected. I have not problem giving my email
address but not in the address heading of posts. I was getting over 500
spams a day. I did create a BS Yahoo account simply to collect spam. What
have others done?

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> As a well-known AFW busybody, I've periodically taken it upon myself to
post
> courtesy reminders. There is more valuable info at
> http://www.virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/guide.htm, as St. Helier pointed
out.
>
> First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit. Our
> website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email address)
can
> reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to
anonymous
> complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use their
real
> names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
> Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email
address. As
> to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much energy
into
> conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As they
say,
> YMMV.
>
> A few other points (mostly derived from previous courtesy posts):
> 1) This is Usenet , a tool for discussion. Don't expect to post something
w/o
> possibility of someone refuting it.
> 2) Please keep in mind that many of the contributors to alt.food.wine do
not
> speak English as their first language.
> 3) Let's try to avoid personal comments. If you don't like someone, filter
> their posts. The details of how to do that vary according to newsreader
> software, but tutorials exist on the Web for employing filters in all the
> popular newsreaders.
> 4) New Folks: you're here to learn, right? So if someone who has been on
AFW
> for years and serious about wine for 30+ corrects you, learn from it,
don't get
> your feelings hurt.
> 5) Old folks : remember you were new (to wine and AFW) at some point, too.
> Correct if need be, but let's try to do so graciously.
> 6) Personally, I find it less than helpful to make generalizations about
people
> based on where they live, what they do outside wine, etc.
> 7) No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
simplicity or
> elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big enough for
someone to
> have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to have rack of lamb with a
fine
> Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to read about a meal you wouldn't eat
> yourself?
> 8)Newbies: we welcome your participation (this is speaking as someone who
has
> participated for a few years, I'm neither a true old-timer or a newbie).
But as
> in ANY social situation, whether on or off line, it is wisest not to
attack a
> respected member of a community while a newbie, it really won't win you
any
> points. It is a time-honored tradition that one should lurk for a while
before
> posting to get a feel re tone of a group.
>
> So there. I'm sure I've offended a couple of old-timers and a couple of
> newbies, but hope the rest of you can take these remarks to heart. I don't
> claim to be immune to digression (remember the "collectors recork wine
every 10
> years/chianti cannot be drunk young/Europeans are all wine sophisticates"
guy?
> I got a little over-involved); all I'm asking is that we try to keep these
> guidelines in mind.
>
> * mentioning Craig Winchell made me think that I hope many folks have
enjoyed
> his fine wines over last few nights, and reminded me to wish you all happy
> Passover or Easter, as the case may be.
>
> Best,
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

dick wrote:
> Dale, I recently removed my real email address when I started to receive to
> much spam on regular email.

So I discovered a while ago when attempting to send you an e-mail, Dick. ;-)

Some one told me that the newgroups are scanned
> and addresses are some how collected. I have not problem giving my email
> address but not in the address heading of posts. I was getting over 500
> spams a day. I did create a BS Yahoo account simply to collect spam. What
> have others done?

Dale has given you a pretty good rundown on the options. After years of
posting with an unmunged address, I started munging it recently after
seeing a sharp upturn in spam traffic -- though nothing to match your
500/day figure. I also employ heuristic spam filters in my
e-mail/newsgroup client (Mozilla Thunderbird), which I can highly recommend.

Mark Lipton

If I may say so as a "newbie" to this NG (but not to its subject), that is an
excellent and succinct guide to usenet etiquette. I have contributed to, and
benefited from, alt.guitar.bass for some time now, and have recently noted an
increase in OT postings. It must be said that some of these are welcome, for
instance when they involve personal or family news from a regular contributor whom
one feels one "knows" even if they have no relevance to our common interest, the bass
guitar. OTOH the increasingly common political rants (perhaps because it's a US
election year) and the responses that they inevitably generate are becoming
increasingly tiresome. Thankfully, these aberrations appear to be absent from AFW.
The only (slightly) OT post I have noted so far concerns the Stanley Cup, though, so
I can't promise not to get slightly animated about that.

Regards,

Ian

"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
> As a well-known AFW busybody, I've periodically taken it upon myself to post
> courtesy reminders. There is more valuable info at
> http://www.virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/guide.htm, as St. Helier pointed out.
>
> First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit. Our
> website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email address) can
> reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to anonymous
> complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use their real
> names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
> Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email address. As
> to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much energy into
> conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As they say,
> YMMV.
>
> A few other points (mostly derived from previous courtesy posts):
> 1) This is Usenet , a tool for discussion. Don't expect to post something w/o
> possibility of someone refuting it.
> 2) Please keep in mind that many of the contributors to alt.food.wine do not
> speak English as their first language.
> 3) Let's try to avoid personal comments. If you don't like someone, filter
> their posts. The details of how to do that vary according to newsreader
> software, but tutorials exist on the Web for employing filters in all the
> popular newsreaders.
> 4) New Folks: you're here to learn, right? So if someone who has been on AFW
> for years and serious about wine for 30+ corrects you, learn from it, don't get
> your feelings hurt.
> 5) Old folks : remember you were new (to wine and AFW) at some point, too.
> Correct if need be, but let's try to do so graciously.
> 6) Personally, I find it less than helpful to make generalizations about people
> based on where they live, what they do outside wine, etc.
> 7) No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the simplicity or
> elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big enough for someone to
> have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to have rack of lamb with a fine
> Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to read about a meal you wouldn't eat
> yourself?
> 8)Newbies: we welcome your participation (this is speaking as someone who has
> participated for a few years, I'm neither a true old-timer or a newbie). But as
> in ANY social situation, whether on or off line, it is wisest not to attack a
> respected member of a community while a newbie, it really won't win you any
> points. It is a time-honored tradition that one should lurk for a while before
> posting to get a feel re tone of a group.
>
> So there. I'm sure I've offended a couple of old-timers and a couple of
> newbies, but hope the rest of you can take these remarks to heart. I don't
> claim to be immune to digression (remember the "collectors recork wine every 10
> years/chianti cannot be drunk young/Europeans are all wine sophisticates" guy?
> I got a little over-involved); all I'm asking is that we try to keep these
> guidelines in mind.
>
> * mentioning Craig Winchell made me think that I hope many folks have enjoyed
> his fine wines over last few nights, and reminded me to wish you all happy
> Passover or Easter, as the case may be.
>
> Best,
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:06:16 GMT, "dick" > wrote:

>Dale, I recently removed my real email address when I started to receive to
>much spam on regular email. Some one told me that the newgroups are scanned
>and addresses are some how collected. I have not problem giving my email
>address but not in the address heading of posts. I was getting over 500
>spams a day. I did create a BS Yahoo account simply to collect spam. What
>have others done?

You did exactly what I (and others) have done. We have provided a way
for others to contact us privately (by regular e-mail) without letting
our real e-mail addresses being scooped up by automated programs that
"harvest" e-mail addresses from newsgroups such as afw to be used for
sending spam. Different people have come up with different ways of
dealing with this problem but my guess is that any of them works as
well as any other.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

You can avoid having your email address harvested from your messages
by altering it so that it will be obvious to humans but will fool
machines. See Dale's address below as an example. So, if your
address is you can alter it to something like
this:

johndoe @ provider.com (note spaces around the @)

EMOVETHIS
OSPAM

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:06:16 GMT, "dick" > wrote:

>Dale, I recently removed my real email address when I started to receive to
>much spam on regular email. Some one told me that the newgroups are scanned
>and addresses are some how collected. I have not problem giving my email
>address but not in the address heading of posts. I was getting over 500
>spams a day. I did create a BS Yahoo account simply to collect spam. What
>have others done?
>
>"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> As a well-known AFW busybody, I've periodically taken it upon myself to
>post
>> courtesy reminders. There is more valuable info at
>> http://www.virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/guide.htm, as St. Helier pointed
>out.
>>
>> First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit. Our
>> website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email address)
>can
>> reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to
>anonymous
>> complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use their
>real
>> names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
>> Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email
>address. As
>> to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much energy
>into
>> conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As they
>say,
>> YMMV.
>>
>> A few other points (mostly derived from previous courtesy posts):
>> 1) This is Usenet , a tool for discussion. Don't expect to post something
>w/o
>> possibility of someone refuting it.
>> 2) Please keep in mind that many of the contributors to alt.food.wine do
>not
>> speak English as their first language.
>> 3) Let's try to avoid personal comments. If you don't like someone, filter
>> their posts. The details of how to do that vary according to newsreader
>> software, but tutorials exist on the Web for employing filters in all the
>> popular newsreaders.
>> 4) New Folks: you're here to learn, right? So if someone who has been on
>AFW
>> for years and serious about wine for 30+ corrects you, learn from it,
>don't get
>> your feelings hurt.
>> 5) Old folks : remember you were new (to wine and AFW) at some point, too.
>> Correct if need be, but let's try to do so graciously.
>> 6) Personally, I find it less than helpful to make generalizations about
>people
>> based on where they live, what they do outside wine, etc.
>> 7) No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
>simplicity or
>> elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big enough for
>someone to
>> have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to have rack of lamb with a
>fine
>> Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to read about a meal you wouldn't eat
>> yourself?
>> 8)Newbies: we welcome your participation (this is speaking as someone who
>has
>> participated for a few years, I'm neither a true old-timer or a newbie).
>But as
>> in ANY social situation, whether on or off line, it is wisest not to
>attack a
>> respected member of a community while a newbie, it really won't win you
>any
>> points. It is a time-honored tradition that one should lurk for a while
>before
>> posting to get a feel re tone of a group.
>>
>> So there. I'm sure I've offended a couple of old-timers and a couple of
>> newbies, but hope the rest of you can take these remarks to heart. I don't
>> claim to be immune to digression (remember the "collectors recork wine
>every 10
>> years/chianti cannot be drunk young/Europeans are all wine sophisticates"
>guy?
>> I got a little over-involved); all I'm asking is that we try to keep these
>> guidelines in mind.
>>
>> * mentioning Craig Winchell made me think that I hope many folks have
>enjoyed
>> his fine wines over last few nights, and reminded me to wish you all happy
>> Passover or Easter, as the case may be.
>>
>> Best,
>> Dale
>>
>> Dale Williams
>> Drop "damnspam" to reply
>

--
=================================================
Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
=================================================

Just changed my address...hopefully this will keep me of the spam lists.


"Leo Bueno" > wrote in message
...
>
> You can avoid having your email address harvested from your messages
> by altering it so that it will be obvious to humans but will fool
> machines. See Dale's address below as an example. So, if your
> address is you can alter it to something like
> this:
>
> johndoe @ provider.com (note spaces around the @)
>
> EMOVETHIS
> OSPAM
>
> On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:06:16 GMT, "dick" > wrote:
>
> >Dale, I recently removed my real email address when I started to receive
to
> >much spam on regular email. Some one told me that the newgroups are
scanned
> >and addresses are some how collected. I have not problem giving my email
> >address but not in the address heading of posts. I was getting over 500
> >spams a day. I did create a BS Yahoo account simply to collect spam.
What
> >have others done?
> >
> >"Dale Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> As a well-known AFW busybody, I've periodically taken it upon myself to
> >post
> >> courtesy reminders. There is more valuable info at
> >> http://www.virtual-ink.com.au/afw-faq/guide.htm, as St. Helier pointed
> >out.
> >>
> >> First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit.
Our
> >> website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email
address)
> >can
> >> reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to
> >anonymous
> >> complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use
their
> >real
> >> names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
> >> Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email
> >address. As
> >> to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much
energy
> >into
> >> conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As
they
> >say,
> >> YMMV.
> >>
> >> A few other points (mostly derived from previous courtesy posts):
> >> 1) This is Usenet , a tool for discussion. Don't expect to post
something
> >w/o
> >> possibility of someone refuting it.
> >> 2) Please keep in mind that many of the contributors to alt.food.wine
do
> >not
> >> speak English as their first language.
> >> 3) Let's try to avoid personal comments. If you don't like someone,
filter
> >> their posts. The details of how to do that vary according to newsreader
> >> software, but tutorials exist on the Web for employing filters in all
the
> >> popular newsreaders.
> >> 4) New Folks: you're here to learn, right? So if someone who has been
on
> >AFW
> >> for years and serious about wine for 30+ corrects you, learn from it,
> >don't get
> >> your feelings hurt.
> >> 5) Old folks : remember you were new (to wine and AFW) at some point,
too.
> >> Correct if need be, but let's try to do so graciously.
> >> 6) Personally, I find it less than helpful to make generalizations
about
> >people
> >> based on where they live, what they do outside wine, etc.
> >> 7) No one is superior (In My Humble Opinion) based on either the
> >simplicity or
> >> elegance of what they eat or drink. Isn't this group big enough for
> >someone to
> >> have Shiraz with BBQed chicken and another to have rack of lamb with a
> >fine
> >> Pauillac? Does it somehow offend you to read about a meal you wouldn't
eat
> >> yourself?
> >> 8)Newbies: we welcome your participation (this is speaking as someone
who
> >has
> >> participated for a few years, I'm neither a true old-timer or a
newbie).
> >But as
> >> in ANY social situation, whether on or off line, it is wisest not to
> >attack a
> >> respected member of a community while a newbie, it really won't win you
> >any
> >> points. It is a time-honored tradition that one should lurk for a while
> >before
> >> posting to get a feel re tone of a group.
> >>
> >> So there. I'm sure I've offended a couple of old-timers and a couple of
> >> newbies, but hope the rest of you can take these remarks to heart. I
don't
> >> claim to be immune to digression (remember the "collectors recork wine
> >every 10
> >> years/chianti cannot be drunk young/Europeans are all wine
sophisticates"
> >guy?
> >> I got a little over-involved); all I'm asking is that we try to keep
these
> >> guidelines in mind.
> >>
> >> * mentioning Craig Winchell made me think that I hope many folks have
> >enjoyed
> >> his fine wines over last few nights, and reminded me to wish you all
happy
> >> Passover or Easter, as the case may be.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> Dale Williams
> >> Drop "damnspam" to reply
> >
>
> --
> =================================================
> Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
> Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
> =================================================

Mark, I changed my email signage so you can email me in future. Just remove
the cap items.

thanks.

dick:-)
"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> dick wrote:
> > Dale, I recently removed my real email address when I started to receive
to
> > much spam on regular email.
>
> So I discovered a while ago when attempting to send you an e-mail, Dick.
;-)
>
> Some one told me that the newgroups are scanned
> > and addresses are some how collected. I have not problem giving my
email
> > address but not in the address heading of posts. I was getting over 500
> > spams a day. I did create a BS Yahoo account simply to collect spam.
What
> > have others done?
>
> Dale has given you a pretty good rundown on the options. After years of
> posting with an unmunged address, I started munging it recently after
> seeing a sharp upturn in spam traffic -- though nothing to match your
> 500/day figure. I also employ heuristic spam filters in my
> e-mail/newsgroup client (Mozilla Thunderbird), which I can highly
recommend.
>
> Mark Lipton

dick wrote:
> Mark, I changed my email signage so you can email me in future. Just remove
> the cap items.
>
Thanks, Dick. I actually *did* eventually figure it out from back
posts, but I suppose you could have changed ISPs. Anyway, thanks for
the consideration.

Mark Lipton

in article , Leo Bueno at
wrote on 4/9/04 4:23 AM:

>
> You can avoid having your email address harvested from your messages
> by altering it so that it will be obvious to humans but will fool
> machines. See Dale's address below as an example. So, if your
> address is you can alter it to something like
> this:
>
> johndoe @ provider.com (note spaces around the @)
>
> EMOVETHIS
> OSPAM
>

Not wine related, but maybe w-h-i-n-e related:

For about a year I have only posted to newsgroups using a separate e-mail
account, not the one I use for business or regular e-mail. I still get 50+
spam e-mails a day on my regular account, whereas the newsgroup-only account
gets just one or two a day. I do a fair amount of Google-searching and I've
had conflicting advice as to whether or not it's possible for sites to pick
up my address if I only visit them (not filling out anything). One computer
tech told me it can be done and the site will sell the address on lists that
people buy to hawk whatever product...... usually viagra, debt management,
organ-enhancing products, various other schemes, etc..

Questions:

1. Anyone know, for sure, if sites can harvest your address that way?
2. Using Outlook Express, can I add something like "REMOVE" to my regular
(business) address and have it apply ONLY to newsgroup postings? Going
through the account set-up routine, it looks like there is only a single
address configuration possible for each account, so I'd have to use the
"REMOVE" even in business. Don't want to do that.
3. Any other thoughts on what might be generating the spam on the
non-newsgroup account? (I am one of the 3% using an Apple computer, so I've
found that many filter programs won't work for me.)

Thanks.

In article >, Midlife > writes:

>. Any other thoughts on what might be generating the spam on the
>non-newsgroup account? (I am one of the 3% using an Apple computer, so I've
>found that many filter programs won't work for me.)

There are lots of ways:
Is your address at a "mail to" link on a web page?
Do you have friends that constantly email you forwards (jokes, petitions, chain
letters, "you must read this", supposed health alerts)? With unblinded
addresses, easy toharvest.
Is your email address guessable - isn't that hard,
computers can generate a million combinations of common first and last names
(or initials) and combine with common ISPs.
Some websites sell names of those who signed up for their email lists.

It's a battle, but improved web filters have helped a lot lately IMO.

Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply

in article , Dale Williams at
amnspam wrote on 4/10/04 10:25 AM:

> In article >, Midlife > writes:
>
>> . Any other thoughts on what might be generating the spam on the
>> non-newsgroup account? (I am one of the 3% using an Apple computer, so I've
>> found that many filter programs won't work for me.)
>
> There are lots of ways:
> Is your address at a "mail to" link on a web page?

No. Cox.net is part of Cox Cable service. As far as I know it's a direct
ISP.

> Do you have friends that constantly email you forwards (jokes, petitions,
> chain
> letters, "you must read this", supposed health alerts)? With unblinded
> addresses, easy toharvest.

Not really. But how would my address be harvested by simply receiving
e-mails? I never forward that stuff without deleting everything but the
relevant text. Does the list of addressees get carried along in the header
and get harvested somehow?

> Is your email address guessable - isn't that hard,
> computers can generate a million combinations of common first and last names
> (or initials) and combine with common ISPs.

My regular address is 3 letter + 3 numbers @ cox.net. I've considered the
possibility that Cox, having several million subscribers, could be an easy
target for some kind of permutation program that would churn out my address
pretty easily, since the last part is so widely used. How could I find out
if that's happening?

> Some websites sell names of those who signed up for their email lists.

I try not to give my e-mail address to any site that doesn't appear to be
reputable. How would all those individual senders (if they really are
individuals) pushing drugs, vitamins, etc., etc., get their hands on the
lists? You'd think there would be tons of spam selling lists if they were
that available.
>
> It's a battle, but improved web filters have helped a lot lately IMO.

Very frustrating. I just cringe when someone tells me they get 500 -1,000 a
day. Where is there a good source of info to learn how all this works?
>
> Dale
>
> Dale Williams
> Drop "damnspam" to reply

Midlife > wrote in :



>> Is your email address guessable - isn't that
>> hard, computers can generate a million combinations of common first
>> and last names (or initials) and combine with common ISPs.
>
> My regular address is 3 letter + 3 numbers @ cox.net. I've considered
> the possibility that Cox, having several million subscribers, could be
> an easy target for some kind of permutation program that would churn
> out my address pretty easily, since the last part is so widely used.
> How could I find out if that's happening?
>
>> Some websites sell names of those who signed up for their email
>> lists.

Most of my spam comes with an attbi.com address. That was my address before
Comcast took over and the attbi was supposed to stop working some time ago,
guess they didn't tell the spambots that.

Midlife wrote:
>
> Not really. But how would my address be harvested by simply receiving
> e-mails? I never forward that stuff without deleting everything but the
> relevant text. Does the list of addressees get carried along in the header
> and get harvested somehow?

Unless you "forward all" (or whatever the option is in OE) you shouldn't
include other addresses. However, spammers have taken to various
"hacking" techniques to harvest addresses: installing backdoors on
computers, sniffing Ethernet traffic, Man in the Middle attacks, etc.
Also, some spammers obtain ISP databases via inside jobs.

Might I also put in a plug for Mozilla Thunderbird, since I note that
you're using a Mac Outhouse Express client? It's more secure, less
buggy and has much more advanced anti-spam features. It gets my seal of
approval. http://www.mozilla.org if you're interested.


> My regular address is 3 letter + 3 numbers @ cox.net. I've considered the
> possibility that Cox, having several million subscribers, could be an easy
> target for some kind of permutation program that would churn out my address
> pretty easily, since the last part is so widely used. How could I find out
> if that's happening?

3 letters + 3 numbers? That's far too simple for such a large customer
base, and guarantees simple brute force methods for username generation.

> I try not to give my e-mail address to any site that doesn't appear to be
> reputable. How would all those individual senders (if they really are
> individuals) pushing drugs, vitamins, etc., etc., get their hands on the
> lists? You'd think there would be tons of spam selling lists if they were
> that available.

There probably *are* that many spam e-mail lists for sale. If you were
to hang out in the right IRC chatrooms, you might get a firsthand
glimpse of it.


> Very frustrating. I just cringe when someone tells me they get 500 -1,000 a
> day. Where is there a good source of info to learn how all this works?

http://www.spamcop.net
http://www.spews.org
http://www.spamhaus.org

HTH
Mark Lipton

A thought worth repeating, even if my own:

In article >,
amnspam (Dale Williams) writes:

>First, a thought on anonymity and accountability. I run a non-profit. Our
>website includes a contact form (so anyone, even without an email address)
>can
>reach me. A useful tool, but I've learned to not give much weight to
>anonymous
>complaints. The same applies to Usenet. Most of the people here use their
>real
>names (even if in the industry, such as M. Pronay, Craig Winchell*, or
>Robertson Chai). Some use a pseudonym, but do include a valid email address.
>As
>to others, I personally don't feel that it's wise to put too much energy into
>conversations with those who are unaccountable and unreachable. As they say,
>YMMV.


Dale

Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply