Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>> > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing but
>> > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
>>
>> Doesn't bother me a bit. Lie with pigs; wake up muddy.
>
> To each his own. There are other ways to accomplish the task.

We don't wish to accomplish the same task.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message > from "Default User"
> > contains these words:
>
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>
>> > Keyword filtering can be summed up as "try to keep up with new kinds
>> > of spam by continually fiddling with your rules". I kinda like "set
>> > the right filter, leave it alone, and enjoy Usenet".
>
>> As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing but have
>> the "wrong" news service or email address.
>
> ? I've never seen a news service called nike or an email
> address@bagsandboots.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about me blocking GG.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Nathaniel Calloway wrote:

>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm. Come to think of it, while I've never thought about mapping GG
>>>> posters and OSs before, I wouldn't be surprised to find usage of the
>>>> GG posting interface to be Mac heavy -- at least with respect to
>>>> nonspammer GG posting.
>>>
>>> Out of 4,560 Google posts, 203 of them came from a Mac according to
>>> their X-HTTP-UserAgent: header.
>>
>> And just for kicks, 1011 of them came from AOL.
>
> Yikes. I'm reading and posting this from emacs, and I feel a little out of
> place at the moment. Mac elitism doesn't have anything on us unix terminal
> whores.

As for that AOL count: when AOL dropped Usenet a few years ago, the email
they sent to the AOLers about it recommended - not surprisingly, but
damnably - moving to Google Groups.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

In article >,
"Default User" > wrote:

> Janet Baraclough wrote:
>
> > The message >
> > from "Default User" > contains these words:
> >
> > > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> > > > Keyword filtering can be summed up as "try to keep up with new
> > > > kinds of spam by continually fiddling with your rules". I kinda
> > > > like "set the right filter, leave it alone, and enjoy Usenet".
> >
> > > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing but
> > > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
<snip>
>
> Blinky is advocating blocking googlegroups.com. Others (Dave Bugg) go
> for gmail.com.
> Brian

I have filters for both googlegroups and gmail. My spam has plummeted to
near zero.

But the sad truth is that a lot of wheat has gone with the chaff. This
morning I notice that 314 of 847 articles posted to RFC were killed. I'm
sure I would have enjoyed reading some of those posts. Interestingly,
Sheldon apparently got caught in my kill filter. His posts are gone, but
not missed.

Brian, I was going to ask you for a list of your filter rules, but I
guess that would just show the spammers how to get around the rules.

Regards,
Dave W.

"Dave W" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Default User" > wrote:
>
>> Janet Baraclough wrote:
>>
>> > The message >
>> > from "Default User" > contains these
>> > words:
>> >
>> > > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> > > > Keyword filtering can be summed up as "try to keep up
>> > > > with new
>> > > > kinds of spam by continually fiddling with your rules".
>> > > > I kinda
>> > > > like "set the right filter, leave it alone, and enjoy
>> > > > Usenet".
>> >
>> > > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done
>> > > nothing but
>> > > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
> <snip>
>>
>> Blinky is advocating blocking googlegroups.com. Others (Dave
>> Bugg) go
>> for gmail.com.
>> Brian
>
> I have filters for both googlegroups and gmail. My spam has
> plummeted to
> near zero.
>
> But the sad truth is that a lot of wheat has gone with the
> chaff. This
> morning I notice that 314 of 847 articles posted to RFC were
> killed. I'm
> sure I would have enjoyed reading some of those posts.
> Interestingly,
> Sheldon apparently got caught in my kill filter. His posts are
> gone, but
> not missed.
>
> Brian, I was going to ask you for a list of your filter rules,
> but I
> guess that would just show the spammers how to get around the
> rules.
>
> Regards,
> Dave W.

I've been blocking but more just keep coming with changes. I now
make a rule that certain senders are marked as read: gmail,
yahoo, google, watches, watchec, etc. etc. many of the spammers
use variations of the same address so I'm getting most.
If there ARE legitimate posters I can see their emails & read
them, if not I don't actually have to click on the message to
block or mark as read. My settings delete
all read messages when I leave the group.

On 2008-04-23, Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about me blocking GG.

OK, I've got GG blocked in several NG's. How do I do a blanket kill and
still allow certain ppl through. I use slrn.


I'm not sure I understand the ~ qualifier. Does that mean 'not'? So, a
score of:

[newsgroup]
Sco -9999

~From: username
Message-ID: googlegroups



......would be interpreted as kill any post that is not from 'username' AND is from
googlegroups? This way I could let in some GG posters and kill all other GG
posts. Is my logic sound?

nb

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:
>
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >
> >> Default User wrote:
> >
> >> > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing
> but >> > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
> >>
> >> Doesn't bother me a bit. Lie with pigs; wake up muddy.
> >
> > To each his own. There are other ways to accomplish the task.
>
> We don't wish to accomplish the same task.

I thought we both wished to avoid spam. What IS your task?




Brian

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

On 2008-04-24, notbob > wrote:
>
> OK, I've got GG blocked in several NG's. How do I do a blanket kill and
> still allow certain ppl through. I use slrn.
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand the ~ qualifier. Does that mean 'not'? So, a
> score of:
>
> [newsgroup]
> Sco -9999
>
> ~From: username
> Message-ID: googlegroups
>
>
>
> .....would be interpreted as kill any post that is not from 'username' AND is from
> googlegroups? This way I could let in some GG posters and kill all other GG
> posts. Is my logic sound?

Oh joy!!

Yes, this combination works quite well for the slrn score file. OK, who
have I GG killfiled in rfc that should be reinstated? I thought someone made
up a list. Yes, no?

nb

Dave W wrote:

> In article >,
> "Default User" > wrote:

> > Blinky is advocating blocking googlegroups.com. Others (Dave Bugg)
> > go for gmail.com.
> > Brian
>
> I have filters for both googlegroups and gmail. My spam has plummeted
> to near zero.

If I could do it with XanaNews, I'd filter on gmail in the sender but
no "author" set up. Most of the spammers (at least until now) have had
a bare gmail address as their ID.

> But the sad truth is that a lot of wheat has gone with the chaff.
> This morning I notice that 314 of 847 articles posted to RFC were
> killed. I'm sure I would have enjoyed reading some of those posts.
> Interestingly, Sheldon apparently got caught in my kill filter. His
> posts are gone, but not missed.

Sheldon posts through GG.

> Brian, I was going to ask you for a list of your filter rules, but I
> guess that would just show the spammers how to get around the rules.

I personally don't think the spammers are poring over usenet to see how
people are getting around their posts. If you look at the spam posts,
there are a handful of key words that wipe out a lot of the problem.




Brian

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

nobody but us chickens wrote:


> I've been blocking but more just keep coming with changes. I now make
> a rule that certain senders are marked as read: gmail, yahoo,
> google, watches, watchec, etc. etc. many of the spammers use
> variations of the same address so I'm getting most.

I haven't noticed much shifting. I haven't seen any this week, and so
no new rules. The last update I made was for a different spammer, one
with software cracks.


Brian

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

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:28:11 -0400, Nathaniel Calloway
> wrote:

>> Sqwertz > wrote:
>>
>>> Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm. Come to think of it, while I've never thought about mapping GG
>>>> posters and OSs before, I wouldn't be surprised to find usage of the
>>>> GG posting interface to be Mac heavy -- at least with respect to
>>>> nonspammer GG posting.
>>>
>>> Out of 4,560 Google posts, 203 of them came from a Mac according to
>>> their X-HTTP-UserAgent: header.
>>
>> And just for kicks, 1011 of them came from AOL.
>>
>> -sw
>
>Yikes. I'm reading and posting this from emacs, and I feel a little
>out of place at the moment. Mac elitism doesn't have anything on us
>unix terminal whores.
>
>-Nat

DOS is boss!

your pal,
blake

notbob wrote:

> On 2008-04-24, notbob > wrote:
>>
>> OK, I've got GG blocked in several NG's. How do I do a blanket kill and
>> still allow certain ppl through. I use slrn.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the ~ qualifier. Does that mean 'not'? So, a
>> score of:
>>
>> [newsgroup]
>> Sco -9999
>>
>> ~From: username
>> Message-ID: googlegroups
>>
>>
>>
>> .....would be interpreted as kill any post that is not from 'username'
>> AND is from googlegroups? This way I could let in some GG posters and
>> kill all other GG posts. Is my logic sound?

I would do this:

[newsgroup]
Sco: =0
From: art
From: bert
From: chuck

and put that rule above the GG kill rule in your score file.

The equality symbol before the score tells slrn that when this rule is
triggered do what it says *but then stop scoring this article"; i.e.,
apply no subsequent rules.

So you'd have

[whitelist rule]
[GG kill rule]

And anyone who tripped the first would not have their score lowered.

NOTE the two colons after the word "Score" in the whitelist rule. Two
colons there mean boolean OR. If you only had one colon there, the rule
would have the boolean AND; and in that case a From header would have to
have ALL of the listed criteria (art AND bert AND chuck).


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>
>> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >
>> >> Default User wrote:
>> >
>> >> > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing
>> but >> > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't bother me a bit. Lie with pigs; wake up muddy.
>> >
>> > To each his own. There are other ways to accomplish the task.
>>
>> We don't wish to accomplish the same task.
>
> I thought we both wished to avoid spam. What IS your task?

What does the first second line in my sig say? What is the website at the
link in the last line all about?


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:
>
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >
> >> Default User wrote:
> >>
> >> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Default User wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done
> nothing >> but >> > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
> >> >>
> >> >> Doesn't bother me a bit. Lie with pigs; wake up muddy.
> >> >
> >> > To each his own. There are other ways to accomplish the task.
> >>
> >> We don't wish to accomplish the same task.
> >
> > I thought we both wished to avoid spam. What IS your task?
>
> What does the first second line in my sig say? What is the website
> at the link in the last line all about?

Ok, what is your reason for killing all GG posts? I thought it was a
means to an end, not an end in and of itself.



Brian

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

In article >,
Dave W > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Default User" > wrote:

> > > > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> > > > > Keyword filtering can be summed up as "try to keep up with new
> > > > > kinds of spam by continually fiddling with your rules". I kinda
> > > > > like "set the right filter, leave it alone, and enjoy Usenet".
> > >
> > > > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing but
> > > > have the "wrong" news service or email address.

> <snip but I think the attributions are still OK>
> >
> > Blinky is advocating blocking googlegroups.com. Others (Dave Bugg) go
> > for gmail.com.
> > Brian
>
> I have filters for both googlegroups and gmail. My spam has plummeted to
> near zero.
>
> But the sad truth is that a lot of wheat has gone with the chaff. This
> morning I notice that 314 of 847 articles posted to RFC were killed. I'm
> sure I would have enjoyed reading some of those posts.

> Brian, I was going to ask you for a list of your filter rules, but I
> guess that would just show the spammers how to get around the rules.

It's highly unlikely that the spammers read *any* of the groups that
they spam to. Jewelry, clothes and shoes aren't on topic for rfc, so
I'm sure they are spamming to lots of groups.

Besides, they change addresses so fast that anybody else's list is
already obsolete.

Just highlight the post you want to filter, go to the "filters" menu,
and select "kill this author". Click on "OK" or hit return and you're
set. There are also many other options, some of which I use.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:


> It's highly unlikely that the spammers read any of the groups that
> they spam to. Jewelry, clothes and shoes aren't on topic for rfc, so
> I'm sure they are spamming to lots of groups.
>
> Besides, they change addresses so fast that anybody else's list is
> already obsolete.

But I don't filter addresses, but rather key words in the subject line.

> Just highlight the post you want to filter, go to the "filters" menu,
> and select "kill this author". Click on "OK" or hit return and
> you're set. There are also many other options, some of which I use.

As you say, that's pointless. Examine the subject lines, you'll see a
LOT of repetition. Create filters. Watch spam go away.




Brian

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

On 2008-04-24, Blinky the Shark > wrote:

> The equality symbol before the score tells slrn that when this rule is
> triggered do what it says *but then stop scoring this article"; i.e.,
> apply no subsequent rules.

Ah! ...OK. I thought the equal sign meant to stop scoring all articles at this
article, which would leave other articles unscored. Gotchya. My way also
works, even with multiple white names.

Again, did anyone come up with a good "do not KF" list for rfc google users?

nb

Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>>
>> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >
>> >> Default User wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Default User wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done
>> nothing >> but >> > have the "wrong" news service or email address.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Doesn't bother me a bit. Lie with pigs; wake up muddy.
>> >> >
>> >> > To each his own. There are other ways to accomplish the task.
>> >>
>> >> We don't wish to accomplish the same task.
>> >
>> > I thought we both wished to avoid spam. What IS your task?
>>
>> What does the first second line in my sig say? What is the website at
>> the link in the last line all about?
>
> Ok, what is your reason for killing all GG posts? I thought it was a means
> to an end, not an end in and of itself.

O n c e m o r e - - r e a d t h e l i n k i n m y s i g .


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >,
> Dave W > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> "Default User" > wrote:
>
>> > > > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> > > > > Keyword filtering can be summed up as "try to keep up with new
>> > > > > kinds of spam by continually fiddling with your rules". I kinda
>> > > > > like "set the right filter, leave it alone, and enjoy Usenet".
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > > > As long as you don't mind blocking people who have done nothing
>> > > > but have the "wrong" news service or email address.
>
>> <snip but I think the attributions are still OK>
>> >
>> > Blinky is advocating blocking googlegroups.com. Others (Dave Bugg) go
>> > for gmail.com.
>> > Brian
>>
>> I have filters for both googlegroups and gmail. My spam has plummeted to
>> near zero.
>>
>> But the sad truth is that a lot of wheat has gone with the chaff. This
>> morning I notice that 314 of 847 articles posted to RFC were killed. I'm
>> sure I would have enjoyed reading some of those posts.
>
>> Brian, I was going to ask you for a list of your filter rules, but I
>> guess that would just show the spammers how to get around the rules.
>
> It's highly unlikely that the spammers read *any* of the groups that they
> spam to. Jewelry, clothes and shoes aren't on topic for rfc, so I'm sure
> they are spamming to lots of groups.
>
> Besides, they change addresses so fast that anybody else's list is already
> obsolete.

That's why it's not best to try to filter on From headers.

> Just highlight the post you want to filter, go to the "filters" menu, and
> select "kill this author". Click on "OK" or hit return and you're set.
> There are also many other options, some of which I use.

Having to do that all the time is why it's not best to try to filger on
From headers.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Default User wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>
>> It's highly unlikely that the spammers read any of the groups that they
>> spam to. Jewelry, clothes and shoes aren't on topic for rfc, so I'm
>> sure they are spamming to lots of groups.
>>
>> Besides, they change addresses so fast that anybody else's list is
>> already obsolete.
>
> But I don't filter addresses, but rather key words in the subject line.
>
>> Just highlight the post you want to filter, go to the "filters" menu,
>> and select "kill this author". Click on "OK" or hit return and you're
>> set. There are also many other options, some of which I use.
>
> As you say, that's pointless. Examine the subject lines, you'll see a LOT
> of repetition. Create filters.

On criterioa that don't change *at all*.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

blake murphy > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:28:11 -0400, Nathaniel Calloway
> > wrote:
>
>>Yikes. I'm reading and posting this from emacs, and I feel a little
>>out of place at the moment. Mac elitism doesn't have anything on us
>>unix terminal whores.
>
> DOS is boss!

I'm reading Usenet VIA telnet on a Netcom shell account and a
makeshift PERL script. All my posts are typed right at the Bourne
shell \
\
..
-sw

On 2008-04-25, Sqwertz > wrote:

> makeshift PERL script. All my posts are typed right at the Bourne
> shell \

Someone still uses that dinaosaur?

nb

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:43:21 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2008-04-24, Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>
>> The equality symbol before the score tells slrn that when this rule is
>> triggered do what it says *but then stop scoring this article"; i.e.,
>> apply no subsequent rules.
>
>Ah! ...OK. I thought the equal sign meant to stop scoring all articles at this
>article, which would leave other articles unscored. Gotchya. My way also
>works, even with multiple white names.
>
>Again, did anyone come up with a good "do not KF" list for rfc google users?
>
>nb

sqwertz posted a list here not too long ago, and i have some
additional names of gmail users and those with 'googlegroups' in the
message i.d.

if you'd like, email me and i'll send it you.

i haven't decided to go that route, yet. n-filter (newsproxy) is not
cooperating with me, so i'm deleting posts as they come in, with the
exception of a few rules (over three cross-posts, etc.).

your pal,
blake

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > Ok, what is your reason for killing all GG posts? I thought it was
> > a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
>
> O n c e m o r e - - r e a d t h e l i n k i n m y s i
> g .

I'm not going to go read some web page. If you don't want to specify,
then we'll leave it at that.




Brian

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

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > As you say, that's pointless. Examine the subject lines, you'll see
> > a LOT of repetition. Create filters.
>
> On criterioa that don't change *at all*.

Not much. No new filters this week. The minor time spent adjusting the
rules is so tiny that it's not worth worrying about.




Brian

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

On 2008-04-25, Default User > wrote:

> I'm not going to go read some web page. If you don't want to specify,
> then we'll leave it at that.

So, you'll willing to read what he types out ...again!...just for you!....
but, not what he's already typed out (specified) elsewhere because you're
too good to click on a hot-link and view a web page. What's this? Your
idea of a power trip? If you don't want to know, bugger off.

nb

Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>> > Ok, what is your reason for killing all GG posts? I thought it was a
>> > means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
>>
>> O n c e m o r e - - r e a d t h e l i n k i n m y s i g
>> .
>
> I'm not going to go read some web page. If you don't want to specify, then
> we'll leave it at that.

Well, **** if I'm going to try to reinvent the wheel, when my website
covers it all.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Default User wrote:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>> > As you say, that's pointless. Examine the subject lines, you'll see a
>> > LOT of repetition. Create filters.
>>
>> On criterioa that don't change *at all*.
>
> Not much. No new filters this week. The minor time spent adjusting the
> rules is so tiny that it's not worth worrying about.

No adjustment needed here. Ever.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

notbob wrote:

> On 2008-04-25, Default User > wrote:
>
> > I'm not going to go read some web page. If you don't want to
> > specify, then we'll leave it at that.
>
> So, you'll willing to read what he types out ...again!...just for
> you!.... but, not what he's already typed out (specified) elsewhere
> because you're too good to click on a hot-link and view a web page.

Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission, which
I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something else in
mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.




Brian

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

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > Not much. No new filters this week. The minor time spent adjusting
> > the rules is so tiny that it's not worth worrying about.
>
> No adjustment needed here. Ever.

Without knowing what your goal is, it's hard to say whether that's good
or not. My goal is to not see spam, while not blocking non-spammers.
You apparently have a different one. With different goals, then it's
not really possible to compare methods.

As the original post asked specifically about not seeing spam, I don't
exactly know how your instructions for some other purpose are relevant.




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:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>> > Not much. No new filters this week. The minor time spent adjusting the
>> > rules is so tiny that it's not worth worrying about.
>>
>> No adjustment needed here. Ever.
>
> Without knowing what your goal is, it's hard to say whether that's good or
> not. My goal is to not see spam, while not blocking non-spammers. You
> apparently have a different one. With different goals, then it's not
> really possible to compare methods.
>
> As the original post asked specifically about not seeing spam, I don't
> exactly know how your instructions for some other purpose are relevant.

By killing the source of a shitload of it.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Default User wrote:

> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2008-04-25, Default User > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not going to go read some web page. If you don't want to specify,
>> > then we'll leave it at that.
>>
>> So, you'll willing to read what he types out ...again!...just for
>> you!.... but, not what he's already typed out (specified) elsewhere
>> because you're too good to click on a hot-link and view a web page.
>
> Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission, which I
> thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something else in mind.
> He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.

You'd be enlightened if you'd read my ****ing website. But you don't
*want* to know about that, really; you'd rather just continue whining
about me not being willing to repeat for you here what's already available
there.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > As the original post asked specifically about not seeing spam, I
> > don't exactly know how your instructions for some other purpose are
> > relevant.
>
> By killing the source of a shitload of it.

And killing some that's not spam. Which is fine, but as I said, we
apparently have different goals (as you have so stated). You don't want
to block the spam exclusively. I do. My goal is to see no spam AND
block no non-spammers.

I appreciate that you have some other goal in mind, whatever it may be.
However, I believe my goal is the same as the OP's. Therefore my
solution should be more in line with what was asked.




Brian

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

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission,
> > which I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something
> > else in mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.
>
> You'd be enlightened if you'd read my ****ing website.

No doubt.

> But you don't
> *want* to know about that, really;

I think it's fair to say that I don't want to badly enough to do what
you want me to. If you were to post it here, I would read it.

> you'd rather just continue whining
> about me not being willing to repeat for you here what's already
> available there.

If you say so.



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:

> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> Default User wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission, which
>> > I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something else in
>> > mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.
>>
>> You'd be enlightened if you'd read my ****ing website.
>
> No doubt.
>
>> But you don't
>> *want* to know about that, really;
>
> I think it's fair to say that I don't want to badly enough to do what you
> want me to. If you were to post it here, I would read it.

Lazy ****.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Blinky the Shark wrote:

> Default User wrote:

> > I think it's fair to say that I don't want to badly enough to do
> > what you want me to. If you were to post it here, I would read it.
>
> Lazy ****.





Brian

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

On Fri 25 Apr 2008 12:12:22p, Default User told us...

> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2008-04-25, Default User > wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not going to go read some web page. If you don't want to
>> > specify, then we'll leave it at that.
>>
>> So, you'll willing to read what he types out ...again!...just for
>> you!.... but, not what he's already typed out (specified) elsewhere
>> because you're too good to click on a hot-link and view a web page.
>
> Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission, which
> I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something else in
> mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.

In other words, you just want to be spoon fed with information that already
exists in addition to customized information just for you.

Buddy, you're in the wrong place. Regardless of Blinky's expertise, it's
hardly his job to personally tutor you.

Somehow, extreme laziness comes to mind.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 04(IV)/25(XXV)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
4wks 2dys 10hrs 35mins
-------------------------------------------
'In a cat's eye, all things belong to
cats.' English proverb
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Fri 25 Apr 2008 12:12:22p, Default User told us...

> > Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission,
> > which I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something
> > else in mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.
>
> In other words, you just want to be spoon fed with information that
> already exists in addition to customized information just for you.

Not really. I want he to post a one-line statement of his goal.

> Buddy, you're in the wrong place. Regardless of Blinky's expertise,
> it's hardly his job to personally tutor you.

It's not tutoring. It's making a statement of the form, "my goal is
XYZ". I don't happen to know what XYZ is. I THOUGHT I knew what it was.
I thought it was "to not see spam". But it turns out that I was
incorrect. He has some other, unstated goal.

The first time he said, "look at my .sig", I did and saw "Killing all
posts from Google Groups." Well I knew that. I didn't realize he wanted
me to chase some web link. That became clear when he said it again.
However, I'm not going to do so. If he wants his position known on
newsgroup, he can post it. Not post a link to it. Just say what he
means. If he doesn't want to, that's cool.

The important thing is that he has a goal of XYZ that is different from
my goal. I don't mind telling people what mine is. It's to block spam
and not block non-spammers. So far, I'm doing pretty well.




Brian

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

On 25 Apr 2008 20:40:51 GMT, "Default User" >
wrote:

>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Fri 25 Apr 2008 12:12:22p, Default User told us...
>
>> > Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission,
>> > which I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something
>> > else in mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.
>>
>> In other words, you just want to be spoon fed with information that
>> already exists in addition to customized information just for you.
>
>Not really. I want he to post a one-line statement of his goal.
>
>> Buddy, you're in the wrong place. Regardless of Blinky's expertise,
>> it's hardly his job to personally tutor you.
>
>It's not tutoring. It's making a statement of the form, "my goal is
>XYZ". I don't happen to know what XYZ is. I THOUGHT I knew what it was.
>I thought it was "to not see spam".

His goal *is* not to see spam.

>But it turns out that I was
>incorrect. He has some other, unstated goal.

His goal is simple: he doesn't want to see spam. Unfortunately, the
rest of us mortals have no idea how to follow his instructions because
they are written in a shark language only technophiles can follow.

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

On Fri 25 Apr 2008 11:38:40p, sf told us...

> On 25 Apr 2008 20:40:51 GMT, "Default User" >
> wrote:
>
>>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri 25 Apr 2008 12:12:22p, Default User told us...
>>
>>> > Yeah, basically. So what? Obviously I misunderstood his mission,
>>> > which I thought to be not seeing spam. There seems to be something
>>> > else in mind. He can, or not, enlighten me as he pleases.
>>>
>>> In other words, you just want to be spoon fed with information that
>>> already exists in addition to customized information just for you.
>>
>>Not really. I want he to post a one-line statement of his goal.
>>
>>> Buddy, you're in the wrong place. Regardless of Blinky's expertise,
>>> it's hardly his job to personally tutor you.
>>
>>It's not tutoring. It's making a statement of the form, "my goal is
>>XYZ". I don't happen to know what XYZ is. I THOUGHT I knew what it was.
>>I thought it was "to not see spam".
>
> His goal *is* not to see spam.
>
>>But it turns out that I was incorrect. He has some other, unstated
>>goal.
>
> His goal is simple: he doesn't want to see spam. Unfortunately, the
> rest of us mortals have no idea how to follow his instructions because
> they are written in a shark language only technophiles can follow.
>

Well, I guess I'm a technophile because I had absolutely no problem
following anything on Blinky's web site. Of course, I do this at work,
too, for our network. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Friday, 04(IV)/25(XXV)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
4wks 2dys 15mins
-------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton is the Lyin' King. ( Now
playing nation wide )
-------------------------------------------