[Karen AKA Kajikit]

Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
(Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
together.

[Sarah[_1_]]

"Karen AKA Kajikit" > wrote in message
...
> Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
> discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
> posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
> (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
> thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
> together.


I think this was done on purpose to reply to individuals. (Got the hint from
the PING Wertz thread)
There followed netiquette and so on...

Sarah

[Omelet]

In article >,
Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:

> Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
> discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
> posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
> (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
> thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
> together.

I simply killfiled it. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

[Julia Altshuler]

Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
> Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
> discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
> posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
> (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
> thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
> together.


I asked this question to Wertz and haven't gotten an answer so I'll ask
you too.


On my system (mozilla on a Linux platform), if I reply to a thread, I
have the opportunity to change the subject line. I did that on the
thread titled "montreal." I changed it to "Montreal" a couple times.
The changed subject line remains in the same thread. Did that start a
new thread on your system?


When I hit "compose," I can type in the same subject line, but it will
show up in a different thread. I don't do that often. Usually when I
hit "compose," it is because I want to start a new thread, and I give it
a new subject line.


Your system does it differently? It seems to me that changing the
subject line ought to be a good thing. I love it when the subject line
changes to reflect the contents of a post. It makes it so much easier
for me to decide what to read and what to delete without reading.


--Lia

[Andy[_2_]]

Julia Altshuler said...

> Your system does it differently? It seems to me that changing the
> subject line ought to be a good thing. I love it when the subject line
> changes to reflect the contents of a post. It makes it so much easier
> for me to decide what to read and what to delete without reading.


If you change a subject line, all servers will see it that way and everyone
reading will see it.

You correctly noticed when the thread has tangented with enough interest,
that's a fine time for the "new subject" Was "old subject." change to a new
thread. It's considered good etiquette to clue readers in to the change
this way.

A typo as in "My favorite hambuger" in the subject guarantees that it
renders it and any replies unsearchable when hunting for "hamburgers."
That's also a perfect time to rename a thread once you notice a typo. I've
corrected a few subject lines of others posters to get it back on track
after the original post, but somehow it wasn't appreciated. What's a BUM!!!
to do?

One habit I've gotten into is I always type my subject line into the body
of the message, first, since I can spell check it within the body of the
message, then cut and paste it into the subject line without typos. Grammar
is another matter.

You can always practice by posting messages to the alt.test (text matter
only) or alt.test.binaries (binary w/text matter) newsgroups on your
server.

All the best,

Andy

[mooncup]

On Aug 15, 12:46 pm, Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
> Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
> discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
> posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
> (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
> thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
> together.

How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?

[Goomba38]

mooncup wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:46 pm, Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
>> Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
>> discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
>> posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
>> (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
>> thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
>> together.
>
> How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?
>
How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
any trouble?

[sf[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:39 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
>directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
>any trouble?

That would be just peachy if people posted with valid email
addresses.... as it is, it's kinda hard to email a private thanks to
or

Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
here don't seem to have a clue.



--

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies. Groucho Marks

[cybercat]

<sf> wrote
> Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
> inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
> and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
> based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
> munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
> that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
> here don't seem to have a clue.
>

I set up this mail box just for Usenet. It's all I use it for. Anyone can
reach me, but nobody can muck up my usual mailbox.

[Omelet]

In article .com>,
mooncup > wrote:

> On Aug 15, 12:46 pm, Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
> > Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
> > discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
> > posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
> > (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
> > thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
> > together.
>
> How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?

Thread Drift happens...
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

[Omelet]

In article >, sf wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:39 -0400, Goomba38 >
> wrote:
>
> >How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
> >directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
> >any trouble?
>
> That would be just peachy if people posted with valid email
> addresses.... as it is, it's kinda hard to email a private thanks to
> or
>
> Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
> inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
> and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
> based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
> munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
> that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
> here don't seem to have a clue.

What I do is working fine for me.
I gently spam proof it and put the "clue" in my sig.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

[James Silverton[_2_]]

<sf> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:39 -0400, Goomba38
> >
> wrote:
>
> Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
> inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in
> this day
> and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of
> web
> based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no
> need to
> munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your
> address so
> that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy
> posters
> here don't seem to have a clue.
>
>
Many people, like myself, use an obvious misspelling. It's
really only meant to beat spamming robot programs not someone
who really wishes to get in touch and I have found it quite
satisfactory.



--
Jim Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

[sf[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:17:57 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:29:07 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> Some people think they are being smart by putting up totally
>> inaccessible addresses. I think it's downright juvenal in this day
>> and age. ISPs allow multiple mailboxes and there is a slew of web
>> based email like gmail, hotmail, yahoo etc, so there is no need to
>> munge anymore. The best idea of course is to hide your address so
>> that it's not up for public view, but even the most net savvy posters
>> here don't seem to have a clue.
>
>The whole idea is to not receive spam.

Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
four).... maybe one a month.

--
See return address to reply by email

[Becca]

sf wrote:

> Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
> four).... maybe one a month.

Wow, you are so lucky. I get lots of spam every day. Apparently "Russian
Women" are anxious to meet me, I feel inadequate compared to other men,
my Viagra order is ready, and plenty of people are trying to send me
greeting cards. I use Postini and they keep the spam and the viruses
away from my computer.

Becca

[sf[_3_]]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca > wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> Ironically, this address receives the least spam of all (I have
>> four).... maybe one a month.
>
>Wow, you are so lucky. I get lots of spam every day. Apparently "Russian
>Women" are anxious to meet me, I feel inadequate compared to other men,
>my Viagra order is ready, and plenty of people are trying to send me
>greeting cards. I use Postini and they keep the spam and the viruses
>away from my computer.
>
I'm not sure why I'm getting so little, but I assure you that I am.
Here I am all set up with a spam catcher address and it doesn't get
much exercise.


--
See return address to reply by email

[Becca]

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca wrote:
>
>> plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.
>
> I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
> download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
> own personal spam generators.
>
> -sw

Too bad these people do not use their skills in a positive way.

Becca

[blake murphy]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:01:26 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca wrote:
>
>> plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.
>
>I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
>download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
>own personal spam generators.
>
>-sw

lately i've been getting e-mails with just a header and a .pdf
attachment. i don't open them, but can a virus hide in one?

your pal,
blake

[sf[_3_]]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:18:28 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:01:26 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca wrote:
>>
>>> plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.
>>
>>I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
>>download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
>>own personal spam generators.
>>
>>-sw
>
>lately i've been getting e-mails with just a header and a .pdf
>attachment. i don't open them, but can a virus hide in one?
>
You didn't scan the attachments?

--
See return address to reply by email

[blake murphy]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:29:39 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:18:28 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:01:26 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca wrote:
>>>
>>>> plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.
>>>
>>>I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
>>>download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
>>>own personal spam generators.
>>>
>>>-sw
>>
>>lately i've been getting e-mails with just a header and a .pdf
>>attachment. i don't open them, but can a virus hide in one?
>>
>You didn't scan the attachments?

**** no. somebody i've never heard of sends me a .pdf about god knows
what? i delete them.

your pal,
blake

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:

> mooncup wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 12:46 pm, Karen AKA Kajikit > wrote:
> >> Please don't rename threads unless you're changing the topic of
> >> discussion. I don't know how other newsreaders work, but Agent threads
> >> posts by title, so now I have a screen FULL of 'can I be your dowager'
> >> (Fred) etc mini-threads... there was nothing wrong with the original
> >> thread, but now it's broken up into a billion parts instead of neatly
> >> together.
> >
> > How about just starting new threads instead of hijacking existing ones?
> >
> How about people just emailing the personal responses to the other party
> directly instead? Wouldn't that be more direct and save everyone else
> any trouble?

Good idea, although many people post no valid Email address because of
spam. I post a valid address. I got a half dozen identical spams this
morning. It was pretty easy to delete them.

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:


> lately i've been getting e-mails with just a header and a .pdf
> attachment. i don't open them, but can a virus hide in one?


Can't answer your question, but I assume that spam filters can't read
..pdf and .gif files, so they don't get filtered by my ISP.

[Dan Abel]

In article >,
Omelet > wrote:


> I simply killfiled it. ;-)

But what did you killfile? I have 19 options.

[sf[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:32:51 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:29:39 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:18:28 GMT, blake murphy >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:01:26 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.
>>>>
>>>>I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
>>>>download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
>>>>own personal spam generators.
>>>>
>>>>-sw
>>>
>>>lately i've been getting e-mails with just a header and a .pdf
>>>attachment. i don't open them, but can a virus hide in one?
>>>
>>You didn't scan the attachments?
>
>**** no. somebody i've never heard of sends me a .pdf about god knows
>what? i delete them.
>
In most cases, your AV scans incoming and outgoing messages
automatically. Are you really saying you don't have an AV?


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[Felice Friese]

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...

<cut to the tasty part>

> ObFood: Dinner was a spicy chicken stuffed avocado, deep fried,
> and topped with chipotle sauce and cheese.

You keep coming up with ideas like that you may just find yourself back in
my good graces.

Felice

[sf[_3_]]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:24:52 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:42:49 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>> In most cases, your AV scans incoming and outgoing messages
>> automatically. Are you really saying you don't have an AV?
>
>I don't. Never had, never will. And I've never had a virus (or
>a trojan (no, not the rubber) for more than a couple minutes).
>
I might continue to be interested if you had AV, but since you don't
care - why should I?


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[sf[_3_]]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:52:03 -0400, "Felice Friese"
> wrote:

>
>"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
>
><cut to the tasty part>
>
>> ObFood: Dinner was a spicy chicken stuffed avocado, deep fried,
>> and topped with chipotle sauce and cheese.
>
>You keep coming up with ideas like that you may just find yourself back in
>my good graces.
>
He should have stopped at "chicken stuffed", but I'd like to know if
it was a mayonaise based chicken stuffing.


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[Omelet]

In article
>,
Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> Omelet > wrote:
>
>
> > I simply killfiled it. ;-)
>
> But what did you killfile? I have 19 options.

What was I saying again?

I wish you would quote just a LITTLE more!
I generally do key word killfiles or simply pick "kill this subject".
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

[blake murphy]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:42:49 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:32:51 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:29:39 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:18:28 GMT, blake murphy >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 01:01:26 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:34:55 -0500, Becca wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> plenty of people are trying to send me greeting cards.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've been getting a ton of those lately. They want you to
>>>>>download a virus/trojan that turns your machine into one of their
>>>>>own personal spam generators.
>>>>>
>>>>>-sw
>>>>
>>>>lately i've been getting e-mails with just a header and a .pdf
>>>>attachment. i don't open them, but can a virus hide in one?
>>>>
>>>You didn't scan the attachments?
>>
>>**** no. somebody i've never heard of sends me a .pdf about god knows
>>what? i delete them.
>>
>In most cases, your AV scans incoming and outgoing messages
>automatically. Are you really saying you don't have an AV?

nope. i'm careful about what i open.

your pal,
blake

[sf[_3_]]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:31:04 GMT, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:53:07 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>>
>> He should have stopped at "chicken stuffed", but I'd like to know if
>> it was a mayonaise based chicken stuffing.
>
>You would, would you?
>
Never mind, my question was answered elsewhere. The idea of deep
fried avocado is still mind boggling - even the next day. Those crazy
Texans.



--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[sf[_3_]]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:57:49 -0500, Omelet >
wrote:

>I generally do key word killfiles or simply pick "kill this subject".

Me too. I kill nothing in my email and I'd get bored reading the list
if I had any more options than subject and author in my news reader.
Key word kills come when the authors & subjects morph and return.


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[sf[_3_]]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:45:33 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:42:49 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:32:51 GMT, blake murphy >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:29:39 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:18:28 GMT, blake murphy >
>>>>wrote:

>>>>You didn't scan the attachments?
>>>
>>>**** no. somebody i've never heard of sends me a .pdf about god knows
>>>what? i delete them.
>>>
>>In most cases, your AV scans incoming and outgoing messages
>>automatically. Are you really saying you don't have an AV?
>
>nope. i'm careful about what i open.
>
Why did you bring up this subject? You don't have AV, you don't open
what you think is virus generated email. So what?


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[Dan Abel]

In article >, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:57:49 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> >I generally do key word killfiles or simply pick "kill this subject".
>
> Me too. I kill nothing in my email and I'd get bored reading the list
> if I had any more options than subject and author in my news reader.
> Key word kills come when the authors & subjects morph and return.

I find "newsgroups" to be helpful in some cases. That's how I got rid
of Chung, who changed subjects and his name quite often, but *always*
crossposted to sci.med.cardiology.

[sf[_3_]]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:44:30 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >, sf wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:57:49 -0500, Omelet >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I generally do key word killfiles or simply pick "kill this subject".
>>
>> Me too. I kill nothing in my email and I'd get bored reading the list
>> if I had any more options than subject and author in my news reader.
>> Key word kills come when the authors & subjects morph and return.
>
>I find "newsgroups" to be helpful in some cases. That's how I got rid
>of Chung, who changed subjects and his name quite often, but *always*
>crossposted to sci.med.cardiology.

I'm not sure if this old version of my newsreader can do that. Just
doing key word kills did the trick for me.


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[blake murphy]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:59:25 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:44:30 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>>In article >, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 01:57:49 -0500, Omelet >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I generally do key word killfiles or simply pick "kill this subject".
>>>
>>> Me too. I kill nothing in my email and I'd get bored reading the list
>>> if I had any more options than subject and author in my news reader.
>>> Key word kills come when the authors & subjects morph and return.
>>
>>I find "newsgroups" to be helpful in some cases. That's how I got rid
>>of Chung, who changed subjects and his name quite often, but *always*
>>crossposted to sci.med.cardiology.
>
>I'm not sure if this old version of my newsreader can do that. Just
>doing key word kills did the trick for me.

sf, you might look into newsproxy, which i think can do this. it can
also filter anything cross-posted to more than x number of groups,
which i've found handles chung pretty nicely. it's a program you
launch before launching agent, and it does a pre-screening before
agent's own filters kick in. it can be used with other newsreaders
and o.e., netscape and some other browsers as well.

http://www.nfilter.org/

your pal,
blake

[blake murphy]

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:22:00 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:45:33 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:42:49 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 18:32:51 GMT, blake murphy >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:29:39 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:18:28 GMT, blake murphy >
>>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>You didn't scan the attachments?
>>>>
>>>>**** no. somebody i've never heard of sends me a .pdf about god knows
>>>>what? i delete them.
>>>>
>>>In most cases, your AV scans incoming and outgoing messages
>>>automatically. Are you really saying you don't have an AV?
>>
>>nope. i'm careful about what i open.
>>
>Why did you bring up this subject? You don't have AV, you don't open
>what you think is virus generated email. So what?

just curious. i know there are some people here more computer-savvy
than me. also wondering whether others get this type of mail.

thanks for asking though.

your pal,
blake

[sf[_3_]]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:35:25 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:59:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>>
>>I'm not sure if this old version of my newsreader can do that. Just
>>doing key word kills did the trick for me.
>
>sf, you might look into newsproxy, which i think can do this. it can
>also filter anything cross-posted to more than x number of groups,
>which i've found handles chung pretty nicely. it's a program you
>launch before launching agent, and it does a pre-screening before
>agent's own filters kick in. it can be used with other newsreaders
>and o.e., netscape and some other browsers as well.
>
>http://www.nfilter.org/
>
Thanks! I'll give it a look.


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[sf[_3_]]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:38:06 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:22:00 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:45:33 GMT, blake murphy >
>>wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>
>>>nope. i'm careful about what i open.
>>>
>>Why did you bring up this subject? You don't have AV, you don't open
>>what you think is virus generated email. So what?
>
>just curious. i know there are some people here more computer-savvy
>than me. also wondering whether others get this type of mail.
>
>thanks for asking though.
>
Oh, ok.... the short answer is "no".


--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for the chicken, a lifetime commitment for the pig.

[blake murphy]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:19:19 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:35:25 GMT, blake murphy >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:59:25 -0700, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm not sure if this old version of my newsreader can do that. Just
>>>doing key word kills did the trick for me.
>>
>>sf, you might look into newsproxy, which i think can do this. it can
>>also filter anything cross-posted to more than x number of groups,
>>which i've found handles chung pretty nicely. it's a program you
>>launch before launching agent, and it does a pre-screening before
>>agent's own filters kick in. it can be used with other newsreaders
>>and o.e., netscape and some other browsers as well.
>>
>>http://www.nfilter.org/
>>
>Thanks! I'll give it a look.

it's pretty easy to use. (i know some will say 'get a better
newsreader,' but i'm happy with my ancient agent otherwise. old
habits, etc.)

your pal,
blake

[blake murphy]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:53:05 -0500, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:59:25 GMT, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> it's pretty easy to use. (i know some will say 'get a better
>> newsreader,' but i'm happy with my ancient agent otherwise. old
>> habits, etc.)
>
>It just gets worse after 1.9x. That's why I moved to 40tude
>Dialog.
>
>-sw

well then, maybe it's a good think they wouldn't upgrade me for free.

your pal,
blake

[Little Malice]

One time on Usenet, Steve Wertz > said:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:59:25 GMT, blake murphy wrote:
>
> > it's pretty easy to use. (i know some will say 'get a better
> > newsreader,' but i'm happy with my ancient agent otherwise. old
> > habits, etc.)
>
> It just gets worse after 1.9x. That's why I moved to 40tude
> Dialog.

Heh, I'm still using NewsXpress, which hasn't been updated or
supported since 1997. But it works, and it's very simple. I guess
I like simple... ;-)

--
Jani in WA