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).

Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail. The
sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to block on an
individual basis.

Please note that I've cross-posted this message, so please remove other
groups before replying.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

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).
>
> Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail. The
> sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to block on an
> individual basis.
>
> Please note that I've cross-posted this message, so please remove other
> groups before replying.
>



I don't see much spam here. I guess my filters work.

JD

In article >,
JD > wrote:

> 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).
> >
> > Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail. The
> > sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to block on an
> > individual basis.
> >
> > Please note that I've cross-posted this message, so please remove other
> > groups before replying.
> >
>
>
>
> I don't see much spam here. I guess my filters work.
>
> JD

I never noted before that you used "gstringmail.com".

That's clever. ;-)
--
Peace, Om
Remove underscore to validate gmails.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have
come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
-- Mark Twain

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> JD > wrote:
>
>> 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).
>>>
>>> Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail. The
>>> sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to block on an
>>> individual basis.
>>>
>>> Please note that I've cross-posted this message, so please remove other
>>> groups before replying.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see much spam here. I guess my filters work.
>>
>> JD
>
> I never noted before that you used "gstringmail.com".
>
> That's clever. ;-)

It's a little more relevant to the guitar group I
post to <g>

In article >,
JD > wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > In article >,
> > JD > wrote:
> >
> >> 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).
> >>>
> >>> Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail. The
> >>> sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to block on
> >>> an
> >>> individual basis.
> >>>
> >>> Please note that I've cross-posted this message, so please remove other
> >>> groups before replying.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't see much spam here. I guess my filters work.
> >>
> >> JD
> >
> > I never noted before that you used "gstringmail.com".
> >
> > That's clever. ;-)
>
> It's a little more relevant to the guitar group I
> post to <g>

Indeed... <lol>
--
Peace, Om
Remove underscore to validate gmails.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have
come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
-- Mark Twain

Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
groups as well? I don't have Gmail, but I do post through Google
groups as my ISP is so damn retarded (ATT/DSL) they can't get their
newsgroup server to 1) work correctly 2) stay online or 3) to keep
from losing posts.

I love the service/price otherwise as we don't have much competition
for high speed around here making the plan I have literally 50% less
than cable for the same speed.

I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.

Robert

wrote:
> Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
> groups as well?

Not at all, Robert.

> I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
> be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.

I only mentioned the two names because I know for sure that they use gmail.
Believe me, I don't want to miss anyone 'cause (sniffles) I love you all,
bro. :-O

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
news:Qekuj.6901$fZ3.3763@trndny02...
> 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).
>
> Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail. The
> sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to block on
> an individual basis.
>
> Please note that I've cross-posted this message, so please remove other
> groups before replying.
>
> --
> Dave
> www.davebbq.com

I'm about to retreat from this domain too Dave. The blessed speed at which
the thing loads is stressfull.

Harry

Dave Bugg wrote:
> wrote:
>> Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
>> groups as well?
>
> Not at all, Robert.
>
>> I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
>> be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.
>
> I only mentioned the two names because I know for sure that they use gmail.
> Believe me, I don't want to miss anyone 'cause (sniffles) I love you all,
> bro. :-O
>

Do I hear "kumbaya" in the background? ;-)

--
Steve

Harry wrote:

>
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> news:Qekuj.6901$fZ3.3763@trndny02...
> > 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'm about to retreat from this domain too Dave. The blessed speed at
> which the thing loads is stressfull.

It really hasn't been that big of a problem for me. Between
news.individual.net's filters, and my own set, most of the spam is
blocked before reaching me, without the need to block an entire domain.




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:
> Harry wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> news:Qekuj.6901$fZ3.3763@trndny02...
>>> 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'm about to retreat from this domain too Dave. The blessed speed at
>> which the thing loads is stressfull.
>
> It really hasn't been that big of a problem for me. Between
> news.individual.net's filters, and my own set, most of the spam is
> blocked before reaching me, without the need to block an entire
> domain.

I hear that, Brian. But I'm not going to change newservers because they
don't filter a rogue domain as well. The problem is gmail, not the lack of
filtering.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Feb 18, 4:42 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> I only mentioned the two names because I know for sure that they use gmail.
> Believe me, I don't want to miss anyone 'cause (sniffles) I love you all,
> bro. :-O

Damnit, Dave... I laughed so hard I spewed my coffee.

Knock it off already.

I am laughing so hard now I can barely type.

Robert

On Feb 18, 5:47 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:

> My AT&T news server performs much better than what you describe. Try
> news.kc.sbcglobal.net. If you are an ATT subscriber you may be able to hook
> up.

I have beat myself to death trying to get their outsourced NG server
to work right. They have one that is assigned to my domain
(sbcglobal.net) that is in my area, and they say you can't hook up to
another one through ATT. Only the assigned NG server for you area/
domain.

Also, the folks on sbcglobal.help.tech.newsgroups are knowledgeable
and
> friendly about helping with such problems.

Now that might be something to look into. All of my previous efforts
have been through foreign tech support. That caused all kinds of
problems, especially when I had to call back as the entire process
would start over again from their script book.

> I sure wish my DSL speed was a match for the cable speed around here, but
> its sure a lot cheaper, and plenty fast enough for me

DSL >really< worked out well for me. I don't have cable, satellite,
or any other kind of subscription service for TV. I can buy the 6 mps
for $35 a month, without any other purchase.

To get the a similar speed from Time Warner, I would have to have
basic cable and go up two tiers on the ladder to get their similar ISP
product. Cost from Time Warner (including mandatory basic cable
subscription) was $75 or so.

Since I rarely watch TV except for PBS, I didn't want to spend any
dough on cable, so it worked out great for me.

Robert

On 18-Feb-2008, " > wrote:

> X-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:47:32 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
>
>
>
> Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
> groups as well? I don't have Gmail, but I do post through Google
> groups as my ISP is so damn retarded (ATT/DSL) they can't get their
> newsgroup server to 1) work correctly 2) stay online or 3) to keep
> from losing posts.
>
> I love the service/price otherwise as we don't have much competition
> for high speed around here making the plan I have literally 50% less
> than cable for the same speed.
>
> I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
> be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.
>
> Robert

I'm seeing your posts via Verizon news.

--
Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

On Feb 18, 8:42 pm, Denny Wheeler
> wrote:

> Get a 'Basic Basic' one year account at Newsguy--$39.95 for one year
> is damn' good. And that includes some other goodies like webspace,
> carryover of unused bandwidth, etc. And good spam-filtering with
> SpamHippo.

SNIP of good info

Thanks, Denny. I have been alerted to newsguy before by happy
customers. I guess it just irks me to have to pay for something that
is supposed to be part of my ISP package. And perhaps if I could get
someone I could understand that knew what I was trying to do at ATT it
could still do it.

I used Dejanews (jeez... remember them?) as my newsgroup access point
for years, then they had some transitional issues. Then I used to use
AOL's newsgroup service when I had them many years ago, and that was
one of the few things they got right.

But then AOL's access went away. I had known for sometime that
Dejanews had been acquired by Google and that they had retained their
archives. So I tried using them as a portal, and it works great.
There is almost never any downtime, they keep the archives for years,
the archives are easily and quickly searched through Google, and it is
free.

I don't really need binaries, although I admit from time to time it
would be nice to access the furniture and woodworking binaries group
to see what is going on with some of the projects.

I'll tuck that information in your post away for future reference.
You never know....

Robert
I started using google groups after they bought dejanews about 100
years ago. Then I quit.

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).
>
> Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail.
> The sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to
> block on an individual basis.


I haven't noticed many here, either. From *any* domain. And I don't use a
lot of filters. Maybe there's a filter upriver at one of the ISPs that serve
up this group to my ISP or something...



--Brett

vex wrote:
> 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).
>>
>> Hotmail and Yahoo have very few spam originators compared to Gmail.
>> The sheer volume of Gmail spammers have just become too unwieldy to
>> block on an individual basis.
>
>
> I haven't noticed many here, either. From *any* domain. And I don't
> use a lot of filters. Maybe there's a filter upriver at one of the
> ISPs that serve up this group to my ISP or something...

An individual newsgroup may not receive much, if any, spam. But there are a
number of very hi-traffic newgroups which do. I do not consider AFB to be
either hi-traffic or problematic with spam. But blocking the gmail domain
name is not done by newsgroups, it is done universally. The unhappy
side-effect of doing so is that it puts the innocent into the same gulag as
the guilty, regardless of newsgroup.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:
> An individual newsgroup may not receive much, if any, spam. But there
> are a number of very hi-traffic newgroups which do. I do not consider
> AFB to be either hi-traffic or problematic with spam. But blocking
> the gmail domain name is not done by newsgroups, it is done
> universally. The unhappy side-effect of doing so is that it puts the
> innocent into the same gulag as the guilty, regardless of newsgroup.


Agreed. I guess I just felt the need to comment about not seeing the amount
of spam using the news servers I use, as compared to you. I only utilize a
couple of high traffic groups. AFB is the lowest traffic of the bunch. The
higher traffic ones number ~1000msg/day.

About the only time I use my gmail account is to log in to google groups, or
google analytics, or google maps. But I never post to groups from there, I
generally use it as an archival search tool.



--Brett

vex wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>> An individual newsgroup may not receive much, if any, spam. But there
>> are a number of very hi-traffic newgroups which do. I do not consider
>> AFB to be either hi-traffic or problematic with spam. But blocking
>> the gmail domain name is not done by newsgroups, it is done
>> universally. The unhappy side-effect of doing so is that it puts the
>> innocent into the same gulag as the guilty, regardless of newsgroup.
>
>
> Agreed. I guess I just felt the need to comment about not seeing the
> amount of spam using the news servers I use, as compared to you. I
> only utilize a couple of high traffic groups. AFB is the lowest
> traffic of the bunch. The higher traffic ones number ~1000msg/day.
>
> About the only time I use my gmail account is to log in to google
> groups, or google analytics, or google maps. But I never post to
> groups from there, I generally use it as an archival search tool.

If you do, let me know via email so I can create an exception that will let
me see your posts :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> vex wrote:

> > I haven't noticed many here, either.

> An individual newsgroup may not receive much, if any, spam. But there
> are a number of very hi-traffic newgroups which do. I do not consider
> AFB to be either hi-traffic or problematic with spam. But blocking
> the gmail domain name is not done by newsgroups, it is done
> universally. The unhappy side-effect of doing so is that it puts the
> innocent into the same gulag as the guilty, regardless of newsgroup.

What would be an almost sure-fire filter with very little collateral
damage would be to block any with gmail in the "author". Spammers don't
usually take time to create a nick for their spam accounts, and just
use the email address again.

I don't think I can get XanaNews to do that. It can filter on stuff in
the From header line, but it's not quite powerful enough to do
sophisticated parsing.

The newsreader is open-source, but written in Delphi. If it were C or
C++, I'd consider hacking it to put in all the features I think it
needs. Perhaps that's a good thing.




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 in message
...
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> vex wrote:
>
>> > I haven't noticed many here, either.
>
>> An individual newsgroup may not receive much, if any, spam. But there
>> are a number of very hi-traffic newgroups which do. I do not consider
>> AFB to be either hi-traffic or problematic with spam. But blocking
>> the gmail domain name is not done by newsgroups, it is done
>> universally. The unhappy side-effect of doing so is that it puts the
>> innocent into the same gulag as the guilty, regardless of newsgroup.
>
> What would be an almost sure-fire filter with very little collateral
> damage would be to block any with gmail in the "author". Spammers don't
> usually take time to create a nick for their spam accounts, and just
> use the email address again.
>
> I don't think I can get XanaNews to do that. It can filter on stuff in
> the From header line, but it's not quite powerful enough to do
> sophisticated parsing.
>
> The newsreader is open-source, but written in Delphi. If it were C or
> C++, I'd consider hacking it to put in all the features I think it
> needs. Perhaps that's a good thing.
>
>

I have very good luck running a single filter looking for any exclamation
points in the subject line. It gets most of them.



--
Reason Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:

All the DNA is the same.

" > wrote in
:

> On Feb 18, 5:47 pm, "Nunya Bidnits" > wrote:
>
>> My AT&T news server performs much better than what you describe. Try
>> news.kc.sbcglobal.net. If you are an ATT subscriber you may be able
>> to hook up.

robert att / sbc for newsgroups isn't worth a darn in my area either
and hasn't been for years. osts are pretty much wiped off after a few
days in a busy group, they carry no binaries to speak of, They don't care
about newsgroups I guess. I use xnews as a reader and use
News.astraweb.com as a provider. Using the pay by download plan costs 25
dollars for 90 gigs of download. Theres no time limit on it or speed cap
I download binaries also but if you are just reading text 90 gigs is
almost unusable, they also have a 10 dollar scheme for like 25 gigs,
Still a whole lot of text. They have great retention and completion of
groups as well. and No I don't work for them just have used them for
several years and been pretty satisfied.

"Brick" > wrote in message
news:zTruj.5203$kD3.4639@trnddc08...
>
> On 18-Feb-2008, " > wrote:
>
>> X-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:47:32 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
>> groups as well? I don't have Gmail, but I do post through Google
>> groups as my ISP is so damn retarded (ATT/DSL) they can't get their
>> newsgroup server to 1) work correctly 2) stay online or 3) to keep
>> from losing posts.
>>
>> I love the service/price otherwise as we don't have much competition
>> for high speed around here making the plan I have literally 50% less
>> than cable for the same speed.
>>
>> I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
>> be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.
>>
>> Robert
>
> I'm seeing your posts via Verizon news.
>
> --
> Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)

Are you getting this?

Harry

Nunya Bidnits wrote:

> "Harry" > wrote
>
>
>>Are you getting this?
>>
>>Harry
>>
>
>
> Getting what? <g>
>
>
> As always, if you do not recieve this message, please report it immediately.
>
> MartyB in KC
>

"Uh oh. Better send out an email and let everyone know our email's
down"

Actual Quote from one of my clients

On 21-Feb-2008, "Harry" > wrote:

> "Brick" > wrote in message
> news:zTruj.5203$kD3.4639@trnddc08...
> >
> > On 18-Feb-2008, " > wrote:
> >
> >> X-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:47:32 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
> >> groups as well? I don't have Gmail, but I do post through Google
> >> groups as my ISP is so damn retarded (ATT/DSL) they can't get their
> >> newsgroup server to 1) work correctly 2) stay online or 3) to keep
> >> from losing posts.
> >>
> >> I love the service/price otherwise as we don't have much competition
> >> for high speed around here making the plan I have literally 50% less
> >> than cable for the same speed.
> >>
> >> I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
> >> be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >
> > I'm seeing your posts via Verizon news.
> >
> > --
> > Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)
>
> Are you getting this?
>
> Harry

It's fine here Harry.

--
Brick(Said the Arab as he was busily eating his date.)

> They're not using outsourced new servers. They may outsource the
> people who run it, but these are SBC/Prodigy servers - always
> have been.

They were Prodigy/Ameritech up here, but same thing.


> I repeat again: news.dallas.sbcglobal.net works just fine. 99.5%
> of the time (Except for the cancels issue).

I've got a choice between .chi (chicago) .kal (kalamazoo) and .det
(detroit). All of them work really well, but for an occassional hickup.
There are probably others I could get at too.

-John O

"Brick" > wrote in message
news:Aftvj.12145$N95.7653@trnddc03...
>
> On 21-Feb-2008, "Harry" > wrote:
>
>> "Brick" > wrote in message
>> news:zTruj.5203$kD3.4639@trnddc08...
>> >
>> > On 18-Feb-2008, " > wrote:
>> >
>> >> X-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:47:32 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dave, does this mean you can't read a post if it comes through Google
>> >> groups as well? I don't have Gmail, but I do post through Google
>> >> groups as my ISP is so damn retarded (ATT/DSL) they can't get their
>> >> newsgroup server to 1) work correctly 2) stay online or 3) to keep
>> >> from losing posts.
>> >>
>> >> I love the service/price otherwise as we don't have much competition
>> >> for high speed around here making the plan I have literally 50% less
>> >> than cable for the same speed.
>> >>
>> >> I noticed I wasn't in your favorites list (ha! kidding...) so it won't
>> >> be a great loss, but just wondering here if you can see my posts.
>> >>
>> >> Robert
>> >
>> > I'm seeing your posts via Verizon news.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Brick(Youth is wasted on young people)
>>
>> Are you getting this?
>>
>> Harry
>
> It's fine here Harry.
>
> --
> Brick(Said the Arab as he was busily eating his date.)

Interesting, Brick. Verizon must think we're all Amerikanskis because it
comes in on an USA source. But it will bounce Shaw.ca because we're all bad
people,; But if I give them more data them more data than I amprepared to,
they will pass my shaw address.

Carefull don't bite the ti . . erm ....
pits . .

Harry

"Nunya Bidnits" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Harry" > wrote
>
>> Are you getting this?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
> Getting what? <g>
>
>
> As always, if you do not recieve this message, please report it
> immediately.
>
> MartyB in KC
>

Verizon blocks all traffic from outside the USA. I'm surprised you guys are
not raise Bloody Hell! Are you copying China?

Harry