I just found this on another one of my groups, posted by someone else:

Most of the newsgroups I read are becoming inundated with spam. I saw
a post
claiming a solution and followed its link, http://improve-usenet.org/.
This site
says that Google Groups is the conduit for a lot of spam hitting
usenet. I have
no connection with this site.

I¹d seen anti-Google Groups stuff before and ignored it. I use a
dedicated
newsgroups reader (MT-Newswatcher on Mac) but was never enough of a
purist to
care if others posted via Google or not. But the spam was getting to
me. So I
followed its instructions and added a filter to Newswatcher: Kill if
Message-ID
contains ³googlegroups.com².

Presto. The spam is gone. Some authentic, quality posts may be gone
too; I don¹t
know, thus I post this. I¹m sorry if I miss the value that you add to
this
group, but I need to keep this filter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your two-cents??
Otis

Otis T. wrote:

> I just found this on another one of my groups, posted by someone else:
>
> Most of the newsgroups I read are becoming inundated with spam. I saw a
> post
> claiming a solution and followed its link, http://improve-usenet.org/.
> This site
> says that Google Groups is the conduit for a lot of spam hitting usenet.
> I have
> no connection with this site.
>
> I¹d seen anti-Google Groups stuff before and ignored it. I use a
> dedicated
> newsgroups reader (MT-Newswatcher on Mac) but was never enough of a
> purist to
> care if others posted via Google or not. But the spam was getting to me.
> So I
> followed its instructions and added a filter to Newswatcher: Kill if
> Message-ID
> contains ³googlegroups.com².
>
> Presto. The spam is gone. Some authentic, quality posts may be gone too;
> I don¹t
> know, thus I post this. I¹m sorry if I miss the value that you add to
> this
> group, but I need to keep this filter.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your two-cents??

He engaged the right filter.


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

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

> Otis T. wrote:
>
> > I just found this on another one of my groups, posted by someone else:
> >
> > Most of the newsgroups I read are becoming inundated with spam. I saw a
> > post
> > claiming a solution and followed its link, http://improve-usenet.org/.
> > This site
> > says that Google Groups is the conduit for a lot of spam hitting usenet.
> > I have
> > no connection with this site.
> >
> > I¹d seen anti-Google Groups stuff before and ignored it. I use a
> > dedicated
> > newsgroups reader (MT-Newswatcher on Mac) but was never enough of a
> > purist to
> > care if others posted via Google or not. But the spam was getting to me.
> > So I
> > followed its instructions and added a filter to Newswatcher: Kill if
> > Message-ID
> > contains ³googlegroups.com².
> >
> > Presto. The spam is gone. Some authentic, quality posts may be gone too;
> > I don¹t
> > know, thus I post this. I¹m sorry if I miss the value that you add to
> > this
> > group, but I need to keep this filter.

> He engaged the right filter.

I don't see how this filter is going to help anything, except maybe to
boost your ego. Four minutes before he wrote this post, he made another
one in this very thread asking how to killfile spam in Forte. According
to the headers for the post above, it also was made using Forte.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article .net>,
> Blinky the Shark > wrote:
>
>> Otis T. wrote:
>>
>> > I just found this on another one of my groups, posted by someone else:
>> >
>> > Most of the newsgroups I read are becoming inundated with spam. I saw
>> > a post
>> > claiming a solution and followed its link, http://improve-usenet.org/.
>> > This site
>> > says that Google Groups is the conduit for a lot of spam hitting
>> > usenet. I have
>> > no connection with this site.
>> >
>> > I¹d seen anti-Google Groups stuff before and ignored it. I use a
>> > dedicated
>> > newsgroups reader (MT-Newswatcher on Mac) but was never enough of a
>> > purist to
>> > care if others posted via Google or not. But the spam was getting to
>> > me. So I
>> > followed its instructions and added a filter to Newswatcher: Kill if
>> > Message-ID
>> > contains ³googlegroups.com².
>> >
>> > Presto. The spam is gone. Some authentic, quality posts may be gone
>> > too; I don¹t
>> > know, thus I post this. I¹m sorry if I miss the value that you add to
>> > this
>> > group, but I need to keep this filter.
>
>> He engaged the right filter.
>
> I don't see how this filter is going to help anything, except maybe to
> boost your ego.

I think ridding himself of the GG crap was his real motivation.


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

Otis T. wrote:


> followed its instructions and added a filter to Newswatcher: Kill if
> Message-ID contains 3googlegroups.com2.

> Your two-cents??

I don't like domain filters. Too much "collateral damage" that blocks
perfectly reasonable contributors. I've had very good luck filtering on
keywords. I saw no spam this morning.



Brian

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

Default User > wrote in message
...
[snip]
> I don't like domain filters. Too much "collateral
> damage" that blocks perfectly reasonable contributors.
> I've had very good luck filtering on keywords.
> I saw no spam this morning.

Ditto those "commandments." Filtering on a whole domain _might_
be fine if you are willing to put up with the reasonable
posters but filtering on keywords has reaped me a bounty of
unmissed trash. Fer example: Synced up my 'groups and rfc had
125 new posts this morning. With my current filters grinding
away, I popped in to see 43 posts. I'm crushed I missed 82
messages touting wholesale watches for cheap designer purses
and jordon nike shoes for sex with jesus and mohamed earning
money and gold in china.

YMMV,

The Ranger
--
Microsoft gambled that making their users fault-tolerant was a
better use of resources than making their software reliable.
-- Paul Guertin, alt.peeves, 3/20/01

The Ranger wrote:

> Default User > wrote in message
> ... [snip]
>> I don't like domain filters. Too much "collateral damage" that blocks
>> perfectly reasonable contributors. I've had very good luck filtering on
>> keywords. I saw no spam this morning.
>
> Ditto those "commandments." Filtering on a whole domain _might_ be fine if
> you are willing to put up with the reasonable posters but filtering on
> keywords has reaped me a bounty of unmissed trash. Fer example: Synced up
> my 'groups and rfc had 125 new posts this morning. With my current filters
> grinding away, I popped in to see 43 posts. I'm crushed I missed 82
> messages touting wholesale watches for cheap designer purses and jordon
> nike shoes for sex with jesus and mohamed earning money and gold in china.

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".


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

Blinky the Shark > wrote in message
news
> The Ranger wrote:
>> Ditto those "commandments." Filtering on a whole
>> domain _might_ be fine if you are willing to put up
>> with the reasonable posters but filtering on keywords
>> has reaped me a bounty of unmissed trash. Fer
>> example: Synced up my 'groups and rfc had 125
>> new posts this morning. With my current filters grinding
>> away, I popped in to see 43 posts. I'm crushed I
>> missed 82 messages touting wholesale watches for
>> cheap designer purses and jordon nike shoes for sex
>> with jesus and mohamed earning money and gold
>> in china.
>>
> 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".

You say "either" and I say "either"
You say "neither" I say "neither"
"Either" "either", "neither" "neither"

Let's call the whole thing off

You say "potato," I say "patattah"
You say "tomato", I say "creole tomata"

Oh, let's call the whole thing off
Oh, if we call the whole thing off

Then we must part and oh
If we ever part, that would break my heart
So, I say "ursta" you say "oyster"
I'm not gonna stop eatin' urstas just cause you say oyster,

Oh, let's call the whole thing off

Oh, I say "pajamas", you say "pajamas"
Sugar, what's the problem?
Oh, for we know we need each other so

We'd better call the calling off off
So let's call it off, oh let's call it off
Oh, let's call it off, baby let's call it off

Sugar why don't we call it off,
I'm talking baby why call it off
Call it off!

Let's call the whole thing off

The Ranger wrote:
> Blinky the Shark > wrote in message
> news
>> The Ranger wrote:
>>> Ditto those "commandments." Filtering on a whole
>>> domain _might_ be fine if you are willing to put up
>>> with the reasonable posters but filtering on keywords
>>> has reaped me a bounty of unmissed trash. Fer
>>> example: Synced up my 'groups and rfc had 125
>>> new posts this morning. With my current filters grinding
>>> away, I popped in to see 43 posts. I'm crushed I
>>> missed 82 messages touting wholesale watches for
>>> cheap designer purses and jordon nike shoes for sex
>>> with jesus and mohamed earning money and gold
>>> in china.
>>>
>> 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".
>
> You say "either" and I say "either"
> You say "neither" I say "neither"
> "Either" "either", "neither" "neither"
>
> Let's call the whole thing off
>
> You say "potato," I say "patattah"
> You say "tomato", I say "creole tomata"
>
> Oh, let's call the whole thing off
> Oh, if we call the whole thing off
>
> Then we must part and oh
> If we ever part, that would break my heart
> So, I say "ursta" you say "oyster"
> I'm not gonna stop eatin' urstas just cause you say oyster,
>
> Oh, let's call the whole thing off
>
> Oh, I say "pajamas", you say "pajamas"
> Sugar, what's the problem?
> Oh, for we know we need each other so
>
> We'd better call the calling off off
> So let's call it off, oh let's call it off
> Oh, let's call it off, baby let's call it off
>
> Sugar why don't we call it off,
> I'm talking baby why call it off
> Call it off!
>
> Let's call the whole thing off
>
>

You forgot to add...

The Flaming Ranger

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 haven't updated the
filter list since last some time. It only takes a few seconds when I
do. XanaNews allows chaining filters with OR, so I just add a new
keyword on the front of the already established rule. Easy, and no
collateral damage.



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:
>
>
>> 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.

Doesn't bother me a bit. Lie with pigs; wake up muddy.


--
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:

> > 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.



Brian

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

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.

Blinky is advocating blocking googlegroups.com. Others (Dave Bugg) go
for gmail.com.




Brian

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

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.

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

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