On 24/06/2011 7:48 AM, The Cook wrote:

>> Sorry to any of the valid posters who use gmail, but there have just
>> been too many idiot posters and spammers using gmail lately. You may
>> not care if I read your posts in the future, but if you, I would suggest
>> that you munge your user name to get past the gmail filter.
>
> If you use the right news reader you can block gmail and have the
> people that you would like to read and who use gmail. Agent for one
> does this.
>

I am using Thunderbird and I like it for most things. One of its
weaknesses is that it has limited filtering abilities. I have nothing
against all gmail users. There are some legitimate and interesting
people using gamil addresses. However there are also a number of twits
who fly in on gmail accounts. Worse, there is an incredible amount of
spam that comes from gmail addresses. The reason that I posted that is
to give the legitimate uses the opportunity to munge their addresses to
get past the filter..... if they care. They probably don't. It may not
be a major loss either way, but eliminating that domain eases the burden
for me.

On 6/24/2011 8:01 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 24/06/2011 7:48 AM, The Cook wrote:
>
>>> Sorry to any of the valid posters who use gmail, but there have just
>>> been too many idiot posters and spammers using gmail lately. You may
>>> not care if I read your posts in the future, but if you, I would suggest
>>> that you munge your user name to get past the gmail filter.

Better watch out, you'll get your head handed to you for saying
that.

>> If you use the right news reader you can block gmail and have the
>> people that you would like to read and who use gmail. Agent for one
>> does this.

> I am using Thunderbird and I like it for most things. One of its
> weaknesses is that it has limited filtering abilities.

I think if you put the people you want to keep at the top of
your filter and click on Stop Filter Execution (as opposed to
Delete or whatever), you will still get to see them. Does
anyone else know if that's how you'd accomplish that in
Thunderbird?

nancy

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:01:08 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 24/06/2011 7:48 AM, The Cook wrote:
>
>>> Sorry to any of the valid posters who use gmail, but there have just
>>> been too many idiot posters and spammers using gmail lately. You may
>>> not care if I read your posts in the future, but if you, I would suggest
>>> that you munge your user name to get past the gmail filter.
>>
>> If you use the right news reader you can block gmail and have the
>> people that you would like to read and who use gmail. Agent for one
>> does this.
>>
>
>I am using Thunderbird and I like it for most things. One of its
>weaknesses is that it has limited filtering abilities. I have nothing
>against all gmail users. There are some legitimate and interesting
>people using gamil addresses. However there are also a number of twits
>who fly in on gmail accounts. Worse, there is an incredible amount of
>spam that comes from gmail addresses. The reason that I posted that is
>to give the legitimate uses the opportunity to munge their addresses to
>get past the filter..... if they care. They probably don't. It may not
>be a major loss either way, but eliminating that domain eases the burden
>for me.

I have the best of both worlds with Agent. I block gmail and retrieve
the posters I want to read who use gmail. And I don't see the
responses to any of the blocked threads. I can even "ignore"
subthread's that get way off the track or a couple of people who are
having a personal conversation. I can also do the "ignore" threads or
subthread's on the fly and they are not added to my permanent filters.

A lot for $30. Like any new program, it may take some getting use to.
But I have been using it for years and keep it updated. There always
seems to be at least one thing in each upgrade that I find very
helpful.

--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

Dave Smith wrote:

>
> I am using Thunderbird and I like it for most things. One of its
> weaknesses is that it has limited filtering abilities. I have nothing
> against all gmail users. There are some legitimate and interesting
> people using gamil addresses. However there are also a number of twits
> who fly in on gmail accounts. Worse, there is an incredible amount of
> spam that comes from gmail addresses. The reason that I posted that is
> to give the legitimate uses the opportunity to munge their addresses to
> get past the filter..... if they care. They probably don't. It may not
> be a major loss either way, but eliminating that domain eases the burden
> for me.

I use Thunderbird and it seems to filter just fine for me (along with my
news service, individual net). I'm just not seeing whomever you're
talking about? I get no spam, or rare spam. For barely $14/year,
individual.net is worth its price to me.

Nancy Young wrote:

> I think if you put the people you want to keep at the top of
> your filter and click on Stop Filter Execution (as opposed to
> Delete or whatever), you will still get to see them. Does
> anyone else know if that's how you'd accomplish that in
> Thunderbird?
>
> nancy

I use Thunderbird. I can add key words or actual senders to my filter. I
can see a log of what has been filtered if I desire. I can also choose
to forward the filtered posts to a file or delete them unread. It works
very well for me.
If there was a particular poster that I wanted to filter, I would just
add their name (or even just a portion of it) but I've never desired to
delete the entire "gmail" service or anything. I could, but I wouldn't
want to, y'know?

On 6/24/2011 8:35 AM, Goomba wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I think if you put the people you want to keep at the top of
>> your filter and click on Stop Filter Execution (as opposed to
>> Delete or whatever), you will still get to see them. Does
>> anyone else know if that's how you'd accomplish that in
>> Thunderbird?

> I use Thunderbird. I can add key words or actual senders to my filter. I
> can see a log of what has been filtered if I desire. I can also choose
> to forward the filtered posts to a file or delete them unread. It works
> very well for me.
> If there was a particular poster that I wanted to filter, I would just
> add their name (or even just a portion of it) but I've never desired to
> delete the entire "gmail" service or anything. I could, but I wouldn't
> want to, y'know?

I did at one time. I think there is some filtering going on before
posts get to me because, for a time, rfc was *hammered* with gmail
spam, you could hardly find the legitimate posts. It was killing
the group. I filtered gmail at the time and someone here told me
how to 'except' chosen posters from the delete rule. You'd enter
their email into the list of rules, make sure they were at the top,
and you'd mark them 'stop processing rules (whatever)' and their
posts would be unaffected by the delete .gmail rule.

As things stand I don't see so much spam, enough to be a little
annoying but not like it was at that time. I'm thinking of switching
to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
or another.

nancy

On 6/24/2011 8:48 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

> As things stand I don't see so much spam, enough to be a little
> annoying but not like it was at that time. I'm thinking of switching
> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
> or another.

Ignore my brain cramp, I don't get news through my IP any more,
duh.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> As things stand I don't see so much spam, enough to be a little
> annoying but not like it was at that time. I'm thinking of
> switching
> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
> or another.
>
> nancy

I have Verizon, Nancy. Up until recently I saw no spam but a little
is sneaking through lately and I wondered why. Just a thought -
Facebook posts your e-mail address; I hadn't been careful about who
could see what so I'm wondering if spammers gathered it up. No biggy
so far, though.

Dora

On 6/24/2011 9:21 AM, Dora wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>> As things stand I don't see so much spam, enough to be a little
>> annoying but not like it was at that time. I'm thinking of switching
>> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
>> or another.

> I have Verizon, Nancy. Up until recently I saw no spam but a little is
> sneaking through lately and I wondered why. Just a thought - Facebook
> posts your e-mail address; I hadn't been careful about who could see
> what so I'm wondering if spammers gathered it up. No biggy so far, though.

Could be. In the past I noticed that I'd get a spam email to the
address I use as my newsgroup reply-to, every time I'd post. Like
someone was gathering emails from fresh posts.

Recently I was forced to mung my reply-to, so while it did fix this
one issue I was having, I really don't get so much spam to that
address anymore. Now that I think about it, none.

I do get a good amount of spam from the address I use for Facebook,
so I think you're on to something.

nancy

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:01:08 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I am using Thunderbird and I like it for most things. One of its
> weaknesses is that it has limited filtering abilities. I have nothing
> against all gmail users. There are some legitimate and interesting
> people using gamil addresses. However there are also a number of twits
> who fly in on gmail accounts. Worse, there is an incredible amount of
> spam that comes from gmail addresses. The reason that I posted that is
> to give the legitimate uses the opportunity to munge their addresses to
> get past the filter..... if they care. They probably don't. It may not
> be a major loss either way, but eliminating that domain eases the burden
> for me.

Kill the domain and make a white list using "and not". It's something
you need to learn how to do, the program won't do it for you. Ask me
about it when I see you in chat next the time.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:48:28 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> I'm thinking of switching
> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
> or another.

What will you accomplish by switching? Verizon uses comcast's lines
if you're sticking with cable and comcast keeps the fastest speeds for
themselves.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 09:21:05 -0400, "Dora" > wrote:

> Just a thought - Facebook posts your e-mail address;

Where?

> I hadn't been careful about who
> could see what so I'm wondering if spammers gathered it up.

You hadn't switched your settings from "everyone"? If so, you were on
searchable on every internet search engine.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:48:28 -0400, Nancy Young

>> I'm thinking of switching
>> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
>> or another.

>What will you accomplish by switching? Verizon uses comcast's lines
>if you're sticking with cable and comcast keeps the fastest speeds for
>themselves.

Verizon is a DSL carrier if you're in the former Bell East area.

Steve

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:00:53 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> I do get a good amount of spam from the address I use for Facebook,
> so I think you're on to something.

Change your settings to "Friends only".

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:00:53 -0400, Nancy Young

> I do get a good amount of spam from the address I use for Facebook,
> so I think you're on to something.

There's no reason to make this email address visible, unless you want
Facebook contacts emailing you.

Steve

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:25:42 -0400, The Cook >
wrote:

> A lot for $30.

I think an upgrade version is only $19. If I didn't want to deal with
a month of pulling my hair out disabling Agent back to v2x, I'd
upgrade just to get the ignore subthread function.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On 6/24/2011 4:17 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:48:28 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking of switching
>> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
>> or another.
>
> What will you accomplish by switching? Verizon uses comcast's lines
> if you're sticking with cable and comcast keeps the fastest speeds for
> themselves.

Well, I'd be switching to Fios which is fiber optic, but the reason
I'd be switching has to do with Comcast's awful new DVR software, not
my internet connection. Easier and cheaper to bundle my cable and
internet with one provider.

nancy

On 6/24/2011 4:21 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 10:00:53 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> I do get a good amount of spam from the address I use for Facebook,
>> so I think you're on to something.
>
> Change your settings to "Friends only".

I have everything on there Friends only. I don't know where else
spammers are getting that address. Doesn't really matter, it's not
an overwhelming amount of spam, it just makes me wonder.

But in case anyone is wondering, I don't need any Tab lETs ORoth
erIt emsfROM anyONlIN ephARMacy.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> I have everything on there Friends only. I don't know where else
> spammers are getting that address. Doesn't really matter, it's not
> an overwhelming amount of spam, it just makes me wonder.

LOL Having tried to get me to enlarge my bust for several years, they
appear to have decided I have a penis that is undersized. And then there's
this series of girls who want to get to know me via a message service
because they saw my non-existent profile and thought I sounded sexy and
nice.

An email address can also be gleaned from someone else's address book.

On 24/06/2011 8:15 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
weaknesses is that it has limited filtering abilities.
>
> I think if you put the people you want to keep at the top of
> your filter and click on Stop Filter Execution (as opposed to
> Delete or whatever), you will still get to see them. Does
> anyone else know if that's how you'd accomplish that in
> Thunderbird?

I can try that. There are a couple gmail users whose posts I would
like to see. But..... if you have their names in a filter with stop
execution, would they not still get filtered out in another filter for
the domain?

Only one way to find out....

On 6/24/2011 4:45 PM, Giusi wrote:
> "Nancy > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> I have everything on there Friends only. I don't know where else
>> spammers are getting that address. Doesn't really matter, it's not
>> an overwhelming amount of spam, it just makes me wonder.
>
> LOL Having tried to get me to enlarge my bust for several years, they
> appear to have decided I have a penis that is undersized. And then there's
> this series of girls who want to get to know me via a message service
> because they saw my non-existent profile and thought I sounded sexy and
> nice.

(laugh) They gave up on me needing Viagra and penis enlargers.
Thank goodness I've been spared the friendly and lonely girls,
so far.

> An email address can also be gleaned from someone else's address book.

More than once I've gotten emails supposedly from friends or family
trying to sell me stuff or open some link. Creepy.

nancy

On 6/25/2011 2:26 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:16:27 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2011 4:45 PM, Giusi wrote:
>>
>>> An email address can also be gleaned from someone else's address book.
>>
>> More than once I've gotten emails supposedly from friends or family
>> trying to sell me stuff or open some link. Creepy.
>
> And your email address was then sold to other spammers (once you don't
> wire $5000 to your friend stuck in Columbia who was robbed and can't
> talk on the phone but desperately needs your help quickly).

Hah. Yeah, don't call gramma, send her an email.

My first introduction to stolen emails was a lot of years ago when
someone here asked if I'd sent them an email with an attachment.
That would be a no. Ick.

nancy

On 24/06/2011 8:15 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>
> I think if you put the people you want to keep at the top of
> your filter and click on Stop Filter Execution (as opposed to
> Delete or whatever), you will still get to see them. Does
> anyone else know if that's how you'd accomplish that in
> Thunderbird?
>

Thanks, but I relented. After checking my filter log and seeing who was
ending up in there I figured that maybe it was better to put up with the
odd spree of spam and idiocy than to risk losing input from valued
participants.

Dave Smith wrote:

>
> Thanks, but I relented. After checking my filter log and seeing who was
> ending up in there I figured that maybe it was better to put up with the
> odd spree of spam and idiocy than to risk losing input from valued
> participants.

Are you filtering the spam words that they are pushing- "shoes" "gucci"
"prada"...stuff like that? That is much easier, IMO. Especially since
none of those words in headings would usually be appropriate to a
cooking group, you can be fairly confident you won't miss anything or
anyone you really want to read.

On 26/06/2011 3:56 PM, Goomba wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks, but I relented. After checking my filter log and seeing who
>> was ending up in there I figured that maybe it was better to put up
>> with the odd spree of spam and idiocy than to risk losing input from
>> valued participants.
>
> Are you filtering the spam words that they are pushing- "shoes" "gucci"
> "prada"...stuff like that? That is much easier, IMO. Especially since
> none of those words in headings would usually be appropriate to a
> cooking group, you can be fairly confident you won't miss anything or
> anyone you really want to read.

I had those things filtered by topic..... handbags, purses, watches,
shoes, Nike etc. Then I ended up filtering Joseph Littleshoes. The
one that tipped me over the edge had a heading "hi hav e a cool
even...." . There were multiple copies of it and contained a link....
which I did not click on.

On 2011-06-27, Dave Smith > wrote:

> I had those things filtered by topic..... handbags, purses, watches,
> shoes, Nike etc.

Get a better newsreader.

I filter out all googlegroups (GG) posts, which keeps 99.99% of all
that spam/garbage out. I then allow ppl I wanna read, but who use GG,
back in via proper filtering rules. A good newsreader will allow you
to do that.

nb

Dave Smith wrote:

> I had those things filtered by topic..... handbags, purses, watches,
> shoes, Nike etc. Then I ended up filtering Joseph Littleshoes. The
> one that tipped me over the edge had a heading "hi hav e a cool
> even...." . There were multiple copies of it and contained a link....
> which I did not click on.

Odd, cause I have "shoes" in the "subject contains..." selection, not
the "author" selection. So "shoes" would delete anything with "shoes" in
the subject, but not a food related post authored by Joseph Littleshoes.

On Jun 24, 8:00*am, Nancy Young > wrote:
> On 6/24/2011 9:21 AM, Dora wrote:
>
> > Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> As things stand I don't see so much spam, enough to be a little
> >> annoying but not like it was at that time. I'm thinking of switching
> >> to Verizon, we'll see if that affects how much spam I see one way
> >> or another.
> > I have Verizon, Nancy. Up until recently I saw no spam but a little is
> > sneaking through lately and I wondered why. Just a thought - Facebook
> > posts your e-mail address; I hadn't been careful about who could see
> > what so I'm wondering if spammers gathered it up. No biggy so far, though.
>
> Could be. *In the past I noticed that I'd get a spam email to the
> address I use as my newsgroup reply-to, every time I'd post. *Like
> someone was gathering emails from fresh posts.
>
> Recently I was forced to mung my reply-to, so while it did fix this
> one issue I was having, I really don't get so much spam to that
> address anymore. *Now that I think about it, none.
>
> I do get a good amount of spam from the address I use for Facebook,
> so I think you're on to something.
>
> nancy

==
Facebook is SPAM as far as I am concerned. Its a CON game all round
even if the kids did con me into joining them on it.
==