On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:59:26 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>But the effect is the same as if they were really from gmail. Gmail users
>can easily munge their address, but more and more folks are blocking gmail
>period, rather than waste huge chunks of time.

Personally, I think you and the others who are having such a huge
problem with spam on rfc need an isp that has better spam catchers. I
get some spam here, but nothing I can't easily filter out. It's
simply not a problem for me.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:36:40 -0800, sf wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:10:37 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>wrote:
>
>>I was posting via Google before I
>>bought this PC last week and I don't have a gmail account.
>
>Interesting. How did you do that? I always have to log in first with
>my gmail acct.

You don't have to use gmail as your address. I have occasionally used
Google from which to post, but I log in with my regular email address.
Yes, you can set up an account with your regular email address. I
have both gmail and my regular email and I can use either one in
posting from google groups.

Christine

In article <iIMuj.9306$kz3.6976@trndny03>,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > brother mouse > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:36:32 +0000, 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).
> >>
> >> I assume you mean google groups users rather than those that have
> >> @gmail.com return addresses.
> >>
> >> http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
> >
> > Unfortunately, no. Some people find that it is just easier to block
> > posters who put "gmail" in the "from" field.

And some people have no choice. Looks like you're using OE, and the
link above says that you can't kill the spammers any other way, without
adding more software.

> > I find these mildly offensive. It's like the retail merchant who says
> > that it is too much work to find out who steals from his store, so he
> > just doesn't serve customers with dark skin. Says it works great.
>
> It's not the same as all. And what's offensive is to try and insert a racial
> analogy. WebTV is a much better analogy.

Can we go 50/50 here? It's not much similar, but it reminds me of it?
And I never liked it when people killed the entire Webtv domain, either.


> > Dave mentions people who "use" gmail, but if you look at the bottom of
> > some posts from people who put "gmail" in the "from" field, they
> > freely admit that they don't use the account at all,
>
> I made a large point of that several times.

Sorry, I missed that.

> > it is just there
> > because it is required (and must be valid) to use their news service.
> > The spammers who harvest Email from the "from" field can harvest all
> > they want, those people never read mail from those Email accounts.
>
> But the effect is the same as if they were really from gmail. Gmail users
> can easily munge their address, but more and more folks are blocking gmail
> period, rather than waste huge chunks of time.

I don't understand the first half of the above paragraph. I have a lot
more posts to read in this thread, so maybe some things will get clearer
in my mind.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

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

sf wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:59:26 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> But the effect is the same as if they were really from gmail. Gmail
>> users can easily munge their address, but more and more folks are
>> blocking gmail period, rather than waste huge chunks of time.
>
> Personally, I think you and the others who are having such a huge
> problem with spam on rfc need an isp that has better spam catchers.

I'm perfectly happy with my ISP, and I've dealt with the spam.

> I
> get some spam here, but nothing I can't easily filter out. It's
> simply not a problem for me.

And it's no longer a problem for me.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Christine Dabney" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:36:40 -0800, sf wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:10:37 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I was posting via Google before I
>>>bought this PC last week and I don't have a gmail account.
>>
>>Interesting. How did you do that? I always have to log in first with
>>my gmail acct.
>
> You don't have to use gmail as your address. I have occasionally used
> Google from which to post, but I log in with my regular email address.
> Yes, you can set up an account with your regular email address. I
> have both gmail and my regular email and I can use either one in
> posting from google groups.
>
> Christine

Exactamundo! When you create a Google login they ask for an email address.
They don't care what the email address is.

Jill

"sf" wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:59:26 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>>But the effect is the same as if they were really from gmail. Gmail users
>>can easily munge their address, but more and more folks are blocking gmail
>>period, rather than waste huge chunks of time.
>
> Personally, I think you and the others who are having such a huge
> problem with spam on rfc need an isp that has better spam catchers. I
> get some spam here, but nothing I can't easily filter out. It's
> simply not a problem for me.
>

Yabbut... you use gmail. Why, exactly? I much prefer a non-web based email
client; the web based ones are slow and clunky, IMHO. As for ISP's, it all
depends on what is available. Trust me, AT&T, Comcast, they aren't about
SPAM filters. Maybe you mean newsservers rather than ISP's? i.e. NIN.
They're very good at filtering out most SPAM but even they won't block an
entire domain.

Jill

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 20:47:45 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:56:19 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
>fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>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.
>
>Thank you, thank you, thank you. I use commercial Agent for newsgroups
>and had even sent a query to their help desk on how to filter the
>gmail domain. Their answer was complicated and less than useful,
>essentially saying I couldn't. Not a computer guru (just a legal one),
>but after reading your post I did Ctrl+K and entered @gmail.com and
>all the gmail posts were marked. Bingo.

You can do the same by right-clicking in the field and open filters.

Lou

jmcquown wrote:


> Yabbut... you use gmail. Why, exactly? I much prefer a non-web
> based email client; the web based ones are slow and clunky, IMHO.

I've used the same "real" email address at Hotmail for over 10 years
(not this one, obviously). That's through about seven or eight changes
of ISP. At one time, when you left, you left the email address too, I
can't recall if that's still the case. At any rate, I can access my
email from any computer that's connected to the web, without needing
any installed email client.




Brian

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

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:44:24 -0600, zxcvbob >
wrote:

>
>Default User wrote:
>> hahabogus wrote:
>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in
>>> :
>>
>>>> Got a filter that will work with Windows Mail, the replacement for
>>>> OE? Feel free to email me with info.
>>
>>> Mozilla thunderbird.
>>
>> Thunderbird? That had one of the weakest filtering systems of any of
>> the newsreaders I reviewed back when I was selecting one. Unless
>> they've made some major improvements, of course.
>>
>
>
>
>No, they haven't really improved it yet.
>
>I'm using Thunderbird with a freeware local proxy server called
>"nfilter" or "newsproxy" (the same program has 2 names and I'm not sure
>which is proper) to do the filtering.
>
>Bob

i like newsproxy for doing the things agent can't do. there are many
newsreaders it can work with.

your pal,
blake

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> > 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 with you. I don't really see any moral highground with either Dave
or Blinky. Any domain filtering, whether email or news service, is
going to block legitimate users. The collateral damage may be
acceptable, of course.

I am a bit spoiled by NIN's good spam control. That, coupled with my
robust set of filters, results in so little that I barely notice it
even in a group like this. I'm sure domain filtering would be more
attractive if I were blasted with spam.




Brian

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

On Feb 19, 9:00*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Don't think I don't see you, garlic boy.
>
> nancy

In your dreams...

I thought of you the other day when I saw the 10 pound sacks of garlic
at BJ's (A Costco equivilent if you've never seen one).

..fred

"kuvasz guy" > wrote

>On Feb 19, 9:00 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Don't think I don't see you, garlic boy.

> In your dreams...

>I thought of you the other day when I saw the 10 pound sacks of garlic
>at BJ's (A Costco equivilent if you've never seen one).

(laugh) I'm going to take that as a compliment.

nancy

One time on Usenet, said:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:59:26 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
> >But the effect is the same as if they were really from gmail. Gmail users
> >can easily munge their address, but more and more folks are blocking gmail
> >period, rather than waste huge chunks of time.
>
> Personally, I think you and the others who are having such a huge
> problem with spam on rfc need an isp that has better spam catchers. I
> get some spam here, but nothing I can't easily filter out. It's
> simply not a problem for me.

I don't want my ISP deciding what I should or shouldn't read on
Usenet. They filter my mail, that's enough...

--
Jani in WA

Little Malice wrote:


> I don't want my ISP deciding what I should or shouldn't read on
> Usenet. They filter my mail, that's enough...

I'll bet you don't read any newsgroups hit by the sporger.




Brian

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

On Feb 20, 5:32*pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> "kuvasz guy" > wrote
>
> >On Feb 19, 9:00 pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> >> Don't think I don't see you, garlic boy.
> > *In your dreams...
> >I thought of you the other day when I saw the 10 pound sacks of garlic
> >at BJ's *(A Costco equivilent if you've never seen one).
>
> (laugh) *I'm going to take that as a compliment.
>
> nancy

finest kind...

..fred

The Kat wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:29:39 GMT, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>
>> But you keep referring to it as if it makes a difference to me.
>> Whether these are GG users, Gmail users or spammers who fake
>> gmail.com doesn't matter one wit, the result is the same.
>
> Yes, you have removed MANY good posts

Not really. A few perhaps. Try not to take it personally.

> and yet you continue to do what you accuse others of, and abuse this
> group.

And how's that, pray tell?

> But there's an EASY fix for that, without affecting the GOOD users.
>
> Plonk.

Uh, oh. Now I'm sad. I guess s/he took it personally. :-D

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

The Kat wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 22:57:15 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> AOL users (yes, there ARE good AOL users), users of other low-cost
> dialup ISP, and others.
>
> But some people are just to lazy to learn to use filters,
> and others are too stupid to get a decent Newsreader (like FREE
> Agent).

Still taking things personally, eh?

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Default User" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>
>> Yabbut... you use gmail. Why, exactly? I much prefer a non-web
>> based email client; the web based ones are slow and clunky, IMHO.
>
> I've used the same "real" email address at Hotmail for over 10 years
> (not this one, obviously). That's through about seven or eight changes
> of ISP. At one time, when you left, you left the email address too, I
> can't recall if that's still the case. At any rate, I can access my
> email from any computer that's connected to the web, without needing
> any installed email client.
>

Of course, Brian, and I do that when I'm travelling and want to check email
from a hotel business center. I'm using the web to check my email on my
account back home while I'm here. I just don't care to use a web browser
for email or newsgroup access otherwise.

Jill

One time on Usenet, "Default User" > said:
> Little Malice wrote:
>
>
> > I don't want my ISP deciding what I should or shouldn't read on
> > Usenet. They filter my mail, that's enough...
>
> I'll bet you don't read any newsgroups hit by the sporger.

Nope. If I did, maybe my attitude would be different...

--
Jani in WA

sf wrote:

> On 20 Feb 2008 18:13:31 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Yabbut... you use gmail. Why, exactly? I much prefer a non-web
> >> based email client; the web based ones are slow and clunky, IMHO.
> >
> > I've used the same "real" email address at Hotmail for over 10 years
> > (not this one, obviously). That's through about seven or eight
> > changes of ISP. At one time, when you left, you left the email
> > address too, I can't recall if that's still the case. At any rate,
> > I can access my email from any computer that's connected to the
> > web, without needing any installed email client.
> >
>
> Most, if not all, ISPs are set up now so you can access your email
> through the web too.

It didn't used to be that way, when I was establishing my email
address. Plus the problem of losing the address every time you changed
ISP. I've had a stable email address for over ten years, because it was
Hotmail. I have dozens of email alerts and notification services I
subscribe to, and I'm in many people's address books already. I'm sure
as hell not going to change.



Brian

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

On 21 Feb 2008 17:14:36 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> Most, if not all, ISPs are set up now so you can access your email
>> through the web too.
>
>It didn't used to be that way, when I was establishing my email
>address. Plus the problem of losing the address every time you changed
>ISP. I've had a stable email address for over ten years, because it was
>Hotmail. I have dozens of email alerts and notification services I
>subscribe to, and I'm in many people's address books already. I'm sure
>as hell not going to change.
>
>

Major ISPs have made their mail accessible via the web for at least 10
years. It's nothing new.

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

sf wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2008 17:14:36 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Most, if not all, ISPs are set up now so you can access your email
> >> through the web too.
> >
> > It didn't used to be that way, when I was establishing my email
> > address. Plus the problem of losing the address every time you
> > changed ISP. I've had a stable email address for over ten years,
> > because it was Hotmail. I have dozens of email alerts and
> > notification services I subscribe to, and I'm in many people's
> > address books already. I'm sure as hell not going to change.
> >
> >
>
> Major ISPs have made their mail accessible via the web for at least 10
> years. It's nothing new.

But not back when I was establishing my email address. The one I have
all over the damn place. Regardless of what you can do NOW. I'm sure
changing it for any reason now. Not to mention that it's perfectly fast
for my needs, especially since Hotmail rolled out the new interface
that allows me to open messages in a new tab from Firefox.





Brian

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