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