Little wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:36:08 GMT:

LM> One time on Usenet, "cshenk" > said:
??>> <sf> wrote
??>>>
??>>> I haven't set up a private group with google.groups.
??>>> However, if I go to rec.food.cooking via google > groups
??>>> > popular groups and post from there - is that considered
??>>> posting via the dreaded google groups? Sometimes it's
??>>> necessary to do.
??>>
??>> Thats why alot of us dont filter by 'google.groups'. Lots
??>> of valid folks use it.

LM> Yup, exactly...

Not lots; very few and I know and admit them. Today seems be one
for a virtual deluge of junk. After 2 hours, 650 posts were
recorded on r.f.cooking, 47 passed the filters. A rather similar
situation pertained to a.usage.english and r.travel.europe.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" > wrote

> Not lots; very few and I know and admit them. Today seems be one for a
> virtual deluge of junk. After 2 hours, 650 posts were recorded on
> r.f.cooking, 47 passed the filters. A rather similar situation pertained
> to a.usage.english and r.travel.europe.

Wow. I figured it must be bad since more and more posters are
asking about blocking gmail. I had no idea it was that bad.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

>
> "James Silverton" > wrote
>
> > Not lots; very few and I know and admit them. Today seems be one
> > for a virtual deluge of junk. After 2 hours, 650 posts were
> > recorded on r.f.cooking, 47 passed the filters. A rather similar
> > situation pertained to a.usage.english and r.travel.europe.
>
> Wow. I figured it must be bad since more and more posters are
> asking about blocking gmail. I had no idea it was that bad.

Between my filters and whatever my news service is doing, I saw very
little.




Brian

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

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:18:44 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:


>I don't know why people even use Google for legitimate news when
>there are free newsservers around for reading/posting to RFC.
>
>-sw

Well..for me, there are several reasons why I might do that. If I
have read a post, and then refreshed and in the process deleted it,
but then decided I want to respond to it, I can go back in through
google and respond. I still use my regular email address, as I have
an account with them using that email address, but it is going through
google groups. Believe me, sometimes this happens, as I find that I
really do have a response to whatever post....

Another time might be when I am at work, or someplace other than my
home computer. I can respond from google groups still...with my
regular email address.

Christine

"James Silverton" wrote

> Not lots; very few and I know and admit them. Today seems be one for a
> virtual deluge of junk. After 2 hours, 650 posts were recorded on
> r.f.cooking, 47 passed the filters. A rather similar situation pertained
> to a.usage.english and r.travel.europe.

Really? I didnt get many spams at all today.

"Sqwertz" wrote

> I don't know why people even use Google for legitimate news when
> there are free newsservers around for reading/posting to RFC.

Most are now wisely 'munging' the address to something else. Few spammers
seem to bother (as of yet).

cshenk wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:25:09 -0400:

??>> Not lots; very few and I know and admit them. Today seems
??>> be one for a virtual deluge of junk. After 2 hours, 650
??>> posts were recorded on r.f.cooking, 47 passed the filters.
??>> A rather similar situation pertained to a.usage.english
??>> and r.travel.europe.

Neither did I but I keep track of what is going on@!


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Dave Bugg > wrote:

> Victor Sack wrote:
> >
> > No, it mostly has to do with killfiling actual spam, loads of it.
> > Killfiling google.groups is a lot more efficient than killfiling
> > gmail.
>
> By a small percentage.

The small percentage is about 30%, in fact, and is bound to grow larger.
Some people here call spammers stupid, while they are anything but.
After all, they managed to defeat Google's not inconsiderable defenses
against automated posting, whereas people calling them stupid cannot
even install a good newsreader or find a kind soul to help them.

As to myself, while I do think that the idea of a UDP of groups.google
is long overdue, in my own small ways I do not drop the atomic bomb and
killfile neither groups.google, nor gmail. I filter or not on my own
terms, and I know enough to do it efficiently.

> But then I don't have to futz around with
> proxy-anything. The few that are left are easy to deal with using regular KF
> filtering.

Your line length is too long; it should be 72 characters by default.

"Futzing around" with proxy-anything, as you put it, is much easier than
having to constantly adjust your filters and, as I said, it is is bound
to get more difficult in the future.

Here is how to set up NewsProxy and other info:
<http://www.nfilter.org/faq.html>.

And here are some ready-made filters:
<http://bearware.info/NewsProxy/newsproxy.html>.

ObFood: Soupe de carottes, from _The Cuisine of the Sun_ by Mireille
Johnston.

Victor

Soup de Carottes
A Delicate Carrot Soup

This light and refreshing soup is easy to prepare in any season. If you
use big winter carrots, add a lump of sugar during cooking.

For 6 people

1 quart water
salt
1 bay leaf
4 large or medium-sized carrots
1 large potato
1 large onion
freshly ground black pepper
1 tablespoon olive oil
1 tablespoon chopped parsley (optional)
2 slices firm white bread for making croutons, optional

Bring water to a boil and add salt and bay leaf. Peel and slice the
vegetables, then add them to the boiling water and simmer for 15
minutes. Pass through a Mouli food mill into a saucepan. Add pepper
(and sugar if desired), and check the seasoning.

Heat for 3 minutes. Sprinkle with olive oil and serve.

You may serve the soup on croutons and sprinkle it with parsley at the
last minute to add color, but I like the very simple, unadorned version.

On Mar 24, 6:27�pm, "cshenk" > wrote:
> "Sqwertz" wrote
>
> > I don't know why people even use Google for legitimate news when
> > there are free newsservers around for reading/posting to RFC.
>
> Most are now wisely 'munging' the address to something else. �Few spammers
> seem to bother (as of yet).

Hmm, then you must mean email spam. Maybe that's what spam folks are
moaning about, having their email addies harvested from Newsgroups,
because all those irrelevant posts have nothing to do with whether
anyone munges their address. I use my real address and get very,
very little spam, AOL has excellent spam filters... in fact if I
wanted I can make a setting so that I receive no spam at all, just
block all email unless the addie is in my address book. I get no more
email spam than I do junk snail mail at home, about 10-20 pieces a
week each.

Christine Dabney <Christine Dabney >> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:18:44 -0500, Sqwertz >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't know why people even use Google for legitimate news when
>>there are free newsservers around for reading/posting to RFC.
>
> Well..for me, there are several reasons why I might do that. If I
> have read a post, and then refreshed and in the process deleted it,
> but then decided I want to respond to it, I can go back in through
> google and respond. I still use my regular email address, as I have
> an account with them using that email address, but it is going through
> google groups. Believe me, sometimes this happens, as I find that I
> really do have a response to whatever post....

There's really no reason to delete posts. Just have them delete
themselves after 30 days or whatever (purging). Set up your
newsreader to only show unread messages, and with a touch of a
button, you can easily bring back the read posts if they're not
already shown in the thread.

ObFood: Ham is a day late. I'm having Easter tonight.

-sw

"Sheldon" wrote

>> Most are now wisely 'munging' the address to something else. ?Few
>> spammers
>> seem to bother (as of yet).

>Hmm, then you must mean email spam. Maybe that's what spam folks are

Nope, newsgroup spam.

James Silverton wrote:

> Not lots; very few and I know and admit them. Today seems be one
> for a virtual deluge of junk. After 2 hours, 650 posts were
> recorded on r.f.cooking, 47 passed the filters. A rather similar
> situation pertained to a.usage.english and r.travel.europe.


I just noticed that there were 572 pending messages for RFC. Once I
downloaded with the gmail filter, only 98 remained. No other spam messages.

Victor Sack wrote:
> Dave Bugg > wrote:
>
>> Victor Sack wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it mostly has to do with killfiling actual spam, loads of it.
>>> Killfiling google.groups is a lot more efficient than killfiling
>>> gmail.
>>
>> By a small percentage.
>
> The small percentage is about 30%,

Sorry, but my reduction in spam messages is by a good 90%, not 70%

In article >,
Goomba38 > wrote:
>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> that is not entirely true. Most... and I say "most"
>> loosely, people put OT in the subject header and sometime people with use
>> PING in the subject header. Since you seem to have spam caught with your
>> "catchword" technique you should be able to filter out most of those. Now
>> thread drift is a different issue altogether. As for myself, sometimes I
>> enjoy thread drift. It can be interesting.
>>
>> Michael
>
>Michael, I have NO problem with thread drift. That is something that
>evolves and as you say be very interesting. My complaint is those OT
>post that started out OT. Being noted "OT" or not, they do not belong
>and yet everyone who tosses one out there (such as jokes, internet
>warnings, political statements, non-food related news events) all think
>they're exempt or witty enough to be forgiven such transgression. While
>some won't speak out here, many do privately and it isn't just me that
>gets annoyed.

Another problem with the "OT" header is that it tends to get broken into
multiple threads for threads of any length, one always WITHOUT the
original "OT: " because is-it-Outlook-Express? assumes it's a "" and
makes it go away. Still off topic but without a nice regexp for
newsreaders to filter on.

As for thread drift: please change the subject so people who wouldn't be
interested in the original can re-evaluate and perhaps participate.

ObFood: easter dinner was roast lamb (with yummy herbs), green salad,
excellent bread with excellent olive oil, and Nigella Lawson's
burnt-butter cupcakes for dessert. My friends took the peanut butter cup
cookies and Truffles a la Kay Hartman home with them to freeze.

Charlotte
--

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:39:43 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> that is not entirely true. Most... and I say "most"
>> loosely, people put OT in the subject header and sometime people with use
>> PING in the subject header. Since you seem to have spam caught with your
>> "catchword" technique you should be able to filter out most of those. Now
>> thread drift is a different issue altogether. As for myself, sometimes I
>> enjoy thread drift. It can be interesting.
>>
>> Michael
>
>Michael, I have NO problem with thread drift. That is something that
>evolves and as you say be very interesting. My complaint is those OT
>post that started out OT. Being noted "OT" or not, they do not belong
>and yet everyone who tosses one out there (such as jokes, internet
>warnings, political statements, non-food related news events) all think
>they're exempt or witty enough to be forgiven such transgression. While
>some won't speak out here, many do privately and it isn't just me that
>gets annoyed.
>

i don't understand your complaint here. if they're marked 'OT:,'
can't you filter them out/not read them?

your pal,
blake

"cshenk" wrote:
> "Sheldon" wrote
>
> >> Most are now wisely 'munging' the address to something else. ?Few
> >> spammers
> >> seem to bother (as of yet).
> >Hmm, then you must mean email spam. �Maybe that's what spam folks are
>
> Nope, newsgroup spam.

You're very confused... your email address hasn't a whit to do with
which posts this Newsgroup receives... in fact posts come in
regardless whether or not you subscribe to this Newsgroup. Those who
are offended by particular posts really don't belong here, this is an
UNmoderated Newsgroup, meaning it's a pure democracy. This Newsgroup
would definitely be a much better community without you and your
killfiling ilk... yoose prefer to exist under a dictatorship there are
plenty of moderated Newsgroups. Yoose problem is you want to be the
dictator, simple, start your own ****ing Newsgroup... and don't let
the rfc door hit your dumb mother****ing NOOBIE ass.

willille wrote:
> Goomba38 wrote:
>
> > What I find more annoying is all the OT threads started here (not to be
> > confused with "thread drift") which clog up the place. Everyone who
> > tosses one up seems to think their own post is somehow exempt from
> > netiquette?
>
> I don't know which is more aggravating. But, I would say the people who
> are to lazy to trim their posts. A 50 line message to add one or t words
> or a short sentence.

From an expert who has just got use of a computer a month ago and to
date has made all of 6 posts...

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:36:12 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon >
wrote:

>this is an UNmoderated Newsgroup, meaning it's a pure democracy

There is no democracy in newsgroups. It's either a dictatorship or
anarchy.

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

sf wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> >this is an UNmoderated Newsgroup, meaning it's a pure democracy
>
> There is no democracy in newsgroups. �It's either a dictatorship or
> anarchy.

Nope, so long as there are filters it's a democracy, everyone gets to
vote with their mouse. This is only an anarchy for those too ignorant
and weak minded to not open those posts they'd rather not. For you
rfc is a venue for exhibiting cowardice veiled under the umbrella of
feigned paranoia

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:55:25 -0700 (PDT), Sheldon >
wrote:

> For you
>rfc is a venue for exhibiting cowardice veiled under the umbrella of
>feigned paranoia.

Hot damn! Does this mean I'm certifiable, Dr?

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

blake murphy wrote:

> i don't understand your complaint here. if they're marked 'OT:,'
> can't you filter them out/not read them?
>
> your pal,
> blake

What makes them any different from spam then? Is it cooking related?
Doesn't it give a newcomer the idea that "anything goes" and is welcome
or appropriate? <shrug>

willille wrote:

> I don't know which is more aggravating. But, I would say the people who
> are to lazy to trim their posts. A 50 line message to add one or t words
> or a short sentence.

Some people are unaware of the art of post-trimming. You are correct, it
is annoying to scroll to the bottom of a message, only to see a
one-liner, or a "me too" response.

If I do not trim a post, it is because someone posted a recipe, and I
dislike trimming recipes.

Becca

Ob Food: We had leftover fried turkey and ham, after Easter, so I put
most of it in the freezer. I love the Reynold's Handi-Vac.

Sheldon <Sheldon >> wrote:

> "cshenk" wrote:
>> "Sheldon" wrote
>>
>>>> Most are now wisely 'munging' the address to something else. ?Few
>>>> spammers
>>>> seem to bother (as of yet).
>>>Hmm, then you must mean email spam. �Maybe that's what spam folks are
>>
>> Nope, newsgroup spam.
>
> You're very confused... your email address hasn't a whit to do with
> which posts this Newsgroup receives... in fact posts come in
> regardless whether or not you subscribe to this Newsgroup. Those who
> are offended by particular posts really don't belong here, this is an
> UNmoderated Newsgroup, meaning it's a pure democracy. This Newsgroup
> would definitely be a much better community without you and your
> killfiling ilk... yoose prefer to exist under a dictatorship there are
> plenty of moderated Newsgroups. Yoose problem is you want to be the
> dictator, simple, start your own ****ing Newsgroup... and don't let
> the rfc door hit your dumb mother****ing NOOBIE ass.

You're the one who's confused regarding the difference between
massive amounts of spam and moderation.

After all these years of using Usenet, you'd think you'd at least
have a clue by now, but you're hopeless.

-sw

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 13:51:49 -0400, Goomba38 >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>
>> i don't understand your complaint here. if they're marked 'OT:,'
>> can't you filter them out/not read them?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>What makes them any different from spam then? Is it cooking related?
>Doesn't it give a newcomer the idea that "anything goes" and is welcome
>or appropriate? <shrug>

it's different because the posts are from people you know who may
think there's some interest for some people here yet are not about
cooking. again, they were kind enough to label them, so you can
filter, ignore, or read at your discretion.

your pal,
blake