OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law

Hi Bill,

This is how your post looks to the spambots (with your address munged
by me:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Path:
news.rcn.com!reader3.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-xfer.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:19:38 -0600

From: "Bill Garber" <wmunged-by-chuck@comcast.net> <---- Here is your
email!
Newsgroups:
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad,sci.electronics.design
References: <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com>
<3fe41f74$0$64994$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl>
<3fe45021$0$4753$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>
<nOSdnWxkrMwXHnmiRVn-hA@comcast.com>
<1071950934.937723@ananke.eclipse.net.uk>
<hvqdnaLKMv9oM3mi4p2dnA@comcast.com>
<MPG.1a4e96ec873c8c47989722@news.west.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:18:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID: <SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>
Lines: 55
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.85.122.196
X-Trace:
sv3-LZoJXMzb2d33AyNq84oPeUatN+j4I7MdyFGf4tw3KWbcGFb+GLdA2/7yVTccfwoNyGWE5zyooJPWr/n!shl5vuldff9MCzpjr2h/neNINPXnmDwkU6DpuSlwxT/ugPyl8pR81+mtw6q6/Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: news.rcn.com alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:86344
sci.electronics.cad:56922 sci.electronics.design:423911


"Active8" <mTHISREMOVEcolasono@earthlink.net,invalid> wrote in
message
news:MPG.1a4e96ec873c8c47989722@news.west.earthlink.net...
: On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:19:23 -0500, willy46pa@comcast.net
said...
: >
: > "Mike Page" <mike@SCRUBeclectic-CAPSweb.BLAMEco.SWENuk> wrote
in
: > message news:1071950934.937723@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
: > : Bill Garber wrote:
: > :
: > : > One thing you can try is nothing. Simply delete them for
: > : > a time, and soon they will remove you by default.
: > :
: > : Wrong.
: >
: > A fine display of the scripture quoted in large
: > bold letters right on your web page. See Below.
: >
: > "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
: > patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
: > gentleness, self-control; against such things
: > there is no law.
: > Galatians 5:22-23
: >
: > Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
: > Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
: > Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
:
: Why? All I or a spammer has to do is grab your reply address
from
: this post. You're toast ;)

That is true, but why aren't they? I seem to be having
less troubles that those who munge their addresses. And,
in case you haven't noticed, you can directly email me
with the REPLY TO SENDER feature. That isn't munged. ;-)
They capture the address from the post content. Munge
that and you're fine. You can leave your Reply address
intact.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, you email address is just a string in a bunch of
text. The spambot is just looking for any text that fits the
form: zzzz@wwww.[com|edu|gov|biz|net|...]

If your spam has dropped off, thank your ISP, they are filtering
it for you. I would prefer that mine didn't. I can do it myself.

-Chuck
 
"Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vu9oi92vo789@corp.supernews.com...
"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dqidnTF5vZnmMHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com...
I mean like hotmail? If so, then you will always
get spam through them.

My account bendix6384@hotmail.com has no spam on it, and it's been up
for quite a few months.
I recently opened a hotmail account. Before I could use it or tell anyone
the addres, for the first few days it was inundated with spam. It seems ot
have calmed down lately.
 
Well, I still insist that most of the spam
comes from entering your email address when
you apply for datasheets or info on a product
or service. Why do they need to email info to
you anyway. They should just put it on the
site. ;-)

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03
 
"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:L7OdnYgOR4zGhHiiRVn-ug@comcast.com...
:
: Well, I still insist that most of the spam
: comes from entering your email address when
: you apply for datasheets or info on a product
: or service. Why do they need to email info to
: you anyway. They should just put it on the
: site. ;-)

Here's an example. I got an email, obviously
unsolicited, offering me very discounted MS
software packages. These are versions from 2002,
which aren't selling anymore, apparently.
Anyway, I hit the Opt-Out link and it opened
a window with a text entry bar. Now, had this
not been one of those wildcard email address
finding autobot emails, they would have had
my email address already entered into the bar,
most likely. Since it wasn't I chose to not
provide it. Hopefully I just saved meself a
whole mess of SPAM from getting sent to me.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/26/03
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Garber
<willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote (in <SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>)
about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:

That is true, but why aren't they? I seem to be having
less troubles that those who munge their addresses. And,
in case you haven't noticed, you can directly email me
with the REPLY TO SENDER feature. That isn't munged. ;-)
They capture the address from the post content. Munge
that and you're fine. You can leave your Reply address
intact.
I believe this is true for spambots - software that trawls for e-mail
addresses. But there are a few(?) humans who trawl as well, and they
look at headers, so Reply-to addresses aren't safe from them.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
 
In article <a3fjLUAPZV5$Ew8a@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk mentioned...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Garber
willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote (in <SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>)
about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:

That is true, but why aren't they? I seem to be having
less troubles that those who munge their addresses. And,
in case you haven't noticed, you can directly email me
with the REPLY TO SENDER feature. That isn't munged. ;-)
They capture the address from the post content. Munge
that and you're fine. You can leave your Reply address
intact.

I believe this is true for spambots - software that trawls for e-mail
addresses. But there are a few(?) humans who trawl as well, and they
look at headers, so Reply-to addresses aren't safe from them.
You should do what I do: whitelist. I haven't had (and will_not_
have) a single spam.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:14:07 +0000, jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk
said...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Garber
willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote (in <SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>)
about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:

That is true, but why aren't they? I seem to be having
less troubles that those who munge their addresses. And,
in case you haven't noticed, you can directly email me
with the REPLY TO SENDER feature. That isn't munged. ;-)
They capture the address from the post content. Munge
that and you're fine. You can leave your Reply address
intact.

I believe this is true for spambots - software that trawls for e-mail
addresses. But there are a few(?) humans who trawl as well, and they
look at headers, so Reply-to addresses aren't safe from them.

It's just as easy for a bot to read a header as it is for a human.

Let's apply a little common sense logic. You're writing a program
to retrieve e-mail, news posts, or web pages. Having never done
that, one might correctly conclude that there are API functions for
HTTP, SMTP, NNTP, WinSock API functions, and VBA controls to get
the job done. If there's a way to get a message body, there should
be a way to get a header. Guess what? There is. Is it any harder to
parse a message header than a message body?

Nope.

BRs,
Mike
 
Bill Garber wrote:

"Mike Page" <mike@SCRUBeclectic-CAPSweb.BLAMEco.SWENuk> wrote in
message news:1071950934.937723@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
: Bill Garber wrote:
:
: > One thing you can try is nothing. Simply delete them for
: > a time, and soon they will remove you by default.
:
: Wrong.

A fine display of the scripture quoted in large
bold letters right on your web page. See Below.

"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
gentleness, self-control; against such things
there is no law.
Galatians 5:22-23

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me
I agree my reply was blunt. Your advice doesn't work for me, Bill. I've
been trying to ignore spam for years, and it doesn't go away. I now get
200 a day.

Regards,
Mike.

--
Mike Page BEng(Hons) MIEE www.eclectic-web.co.uk
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <mTHISREMOVEcolasono@earth
link.net> wrote (in <MPG.1a4f7ec71214c1a198972b@news.west.earthlink.net>
) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sun, 21 Dec
2003:
It's just as easy for a bot to read a header as it is for a human.

Let's apply a little common sense logic. You're writing a program
to retrieve e-mail, news posts, or web pages. Having never done
that, one might correctly conclude that there are API functions for
HTTP, SMTP, NNTP, WinSock API functions, and VBA controls to get
the job done. If there's a way to get a message body, there should
be a way to get a header. Guess what? There is. Is it any harder to
parse a message header than a message body?
The fact remains that spambots DIDN'T cull 'Reply to' addresses. Whether
they do now, or not, I don't have any firm information, but 'people say'
that they don't.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:29:12 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dark
Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
You should do what I do: whitelist. I haven't had (and will_not_
have) a single spam.
Works just great if you already know who will write to you... limited
number of friends ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 22:53:09 -0500, "Bill Garber"
<willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote:

Well, I still insist that most of the spam
comes from entering your email address when
you apply for datasheets or info on a product
or service. Why do they need to email info to
you anyway. They should just put it on the
site. ;-)

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me

[snip]

Since I have my own domains (five) I make up appropriate E-mail
addresses when a sign-up is needed. If the sign-up name gets
"spamified" I simply redirect it to /dev/null/.

*However* I will note that I've had *only* one address that I had to
redirect.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Hi John,

I've said it before, and I will show you again. Your news posting is
simply a flat text file that contains your header information, and what
ever you stick in your posting. Straight text. Nothing funny at all.

It is only your news reader that takes the trouble of breaking the text
file into sections to make it easier for you to read.

Here is your posting as the text file that it is. As a courtesy to
you, I have munged both your addresses by replacing part with
"****" But notice that it is just a flat ascii text file... PERIOD!

It doesn't matter what others have told you. The evidence is right
before your eyes.

-Chuck Harris

------------IMAGINE YOUR POST HERE------------------------------
Path:
news.rcn.com!reader3.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!nntp.abs.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!jmwa.demon.co.uk!jmw
From: John Woodgate <jmw@****.demon.contraspam.yuk> <<<<<----address!
Newsgroups:
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:14:07 +0000
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <a3fjLUAPZV5$Ew8a@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
References: <p5s3uvk7mtp9569i0fc61bp6oqusn37vq6@4ax.com>
<3fe41f74$0$64994$1b62eedf@news.euronet.nl>
<3fe45021$0$4753$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>
<nOSdnWxkrMwXHnmiRVn-hA@comcast.com>
<1071950934.937723@ananke.eclipse.net.uk>
<hvqdnaLKMv9oM3mi4p2dnA@comcast.com>
<MPG.1a4e96ec873c8c47989722@news.west.earthlink.net>
<SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>
Reply-To: John Woodgate <jmw@****.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jmwa.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1071995372 3388 158.152.135.100 (21 Dec 2003
08:29:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:29:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U
<5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
Xref: news.rcn.com alt.binaries.schematics.electronic:86384
sci.electronics.cad:56945 sci.electronics.design:423993

I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Garber
<willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote (in <SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>)
about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:

That is true, but why aren't they? I seem to be having
less troubles that those who munge their addresses. And,
in case you haven't noticed, you can directly email me
with the REPLY TO SENDER feature. That isn't munged. ;-)
They capture the address from the post content. Munge
that and you're fine. You can leave your Reply address
intact.
I believe this is true for spambots - software that trawls for e-mail
addresses. But there are a few(?) humans who trawl as well, and they
look at headers, so Reply-to addresses aren't safe from them.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
------------IMAGINE YOUR POST HERE------------------------------

John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Garber
willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote (in <SLGdnaIswYiXRHmi4p2dnA@comcast.com>)
about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sat, 20 Dec 2003:


That is true, but why aren't they? I seem to be having
less troubles that those who munge their addresses. And,
in case you haven't noticed, you can directly email me
with the REPLY TO SENDER feature. That isn't munged. ;-)
They capture the address from the post content. Munge
that and you're fine. You can leave your Reply address
intact.


I believe this is true for spambots - software that trawls for e-mail
addresses. But there are a few(?) humans who trawl as well, and they
look at headers, so Reply-to addresses aren't safe from them.
 
In news:nOB8lXA0kc5$EwIx@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate):
I read in sci.electronics.design that Active8 <mTHISREMOVEcolasono@earth
link.net> wrote (in <MPG.1a4f7ec71214c1a198972b@news.west.earthlink.net
) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law', on Sun, 21 Dec
2003:

It's just as easy for a bot to read a header as it is for a human.

Let's apply a little common sense logic. You're writing a program
to retrieve e-mail, news posts, or web pages. Having never done
that, one might correctly conclude that there are API functions for
HTTP, SMTP, NNTP, WinSock API functions, and VBA controls to get
the job done. If there's a way to get a message body, there should
be a way to get a header. Guess what? There is. Is it any harder to
parse a message header than a message body?

The fact remains that spambots DIDN'T cull 'Reply to' addresses. Whether
they do now, or not, I don't have any firm information, but 'people say'
that they don't.

And lest us not forget, for the keen and savvy emailer who has never used
one of their addresses yet started receiving spam on it... some spammers
send bulk mail to computer-generated random addresses, much like a wardialer
of the new millennium. This practice should be strictly banned by any and
every mail server, yet there is apparently zero enforcement of any limit on
the number of "bad" messages you can send.

What would be ideal, was if one account sent more than say 1000
"undeliverable" messages per month, their email rights would be suspended
and activity reviewed by their ISP's legal department pending reactivation.
Sure this might make more work for the ISP's, but were talking 1-2 people to
manage the issue (after the initial flood of millions of spammers' accounts'
being closed.)

Nice to dream, eh? :)
 
Mark Jones wrote:
And lest us not forget, for the keen and savvy emailer who has never used
one of their addresses yet started receiving spam on it... some spammers
send bulk mail to computer-generated random addresses, much like a wardialer
of the new millennium. This practice should be strictly banned by any and
every mail server, yet there is apparently zero enforcement of any limit on
the number of "bad" messages you can send.

What would be ideal, was if one account sent more than say 1000
"undeliverable" messages per month, their email rights would be suspended
and activity reviewed by their ISP's legal department pending reactivation.
Sure this might make more work for the ISP's, but were talking 1-2 people to
manage the issue (after the initial flood of millions of spammers' accounts'
being closed.)

Nice to dream, eh? :)
The sender's mails server should only let through email with a valid
address for that account. That way they can't hide, and any emails
server found to be an open relay is completely isolated from the E-mail
system. The information in E-mail headers should be standardized, and
any E-mail server without a valid "Abuse@***.***"address should be
blocked as well. It would cause a lot of problems for a very short time.
Those who don't cooperate can only talk to other low lives like them, as
the rest of the system slowly squeezes them out of business. Implement
it at the backbone level. That way, so called "Direct marketers" with
their own domain name and e-mail servers will be forced to comply, or
loose their on-ramp to the highway. How long could they exist without a
lot of bandwidth to send messages? This would eliminate the need for
limits on the number of E-mails you can send, or billing per e-mail. If
a E-mail server is getting a lot of bounced mail from bad addresses,
they content is examined, and if needed, their connection to the
backbone is severed. This way it doesn't matter whether you are in a
foreign country, or aboard the ISS, you can be blocked. (The ISS has a
20 MHZ bandwidth KU-Band data link to and from the ground.)
--
4 days!


Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
 
"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a4f4005100cdcd7989a58@news.dslextreme.com...
You should do what I do: whitelist. I haven't had (and will_not_
have) a single spam.
This would be much easier if there were adequate support for it in, say,
outlook express. Something like a quarantine area, and the ability to
quickly go through the 'from' addresses and indicate which you like. Also,
having some kind of auto reply that tells people what you are doing, so they
can phone you and get on the white list...

Regards,
Bob Monsen
 
"Mike Page" <mike@SCRUBeclectic-CAPSweb.BLAMEco.SWENuk> wrote in
message news:1072019384.224379@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
: Bill Garber wrote:
:
: > "Mike Page" <mike@SCRUBeclectic-CAPSweb.BLAMEco.SWENuk> wrote
in
: > message news:1071950934.937723@ananke.eclipse.net.uk...
: > : Bill Garber wrote:
: > :
: > : > One thing you can try is nothing. Simply delete them for
: > : > a time, and soon they will remove you by default.
: > :
: > : Wrong.
: >
: > A fine display of the scripture quoted in large
: > bold letters right on your web page. See Below.
: >
: > "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
: > patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
: > gentleness, self-control; against such things
: > there is no law.
: > Galatians 5:22-23
: >
: > Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
: > Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
: > Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
: > Remove - SPAM and X to contact me
:
: I agree my reply was blunt. Your advice doesn't work for me,
Bill. I've
: been trying to ignore spam for years, and it doesn't go away. I
now get
: 200 a day.
:
: Regards,
: Mike.

That's ok Mike. I understand how all this SPAMming
aggrevates people. That many unsolicited emails is
very annoying, and that's putting it mildly.

Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - willy4SPAM6pa@comXcast.net
Remove - SPAM and X to contact me



---
This email ain't infected, dude!

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/27/03
 
In article <dokbuvckgr7ilnja4b7u6i5q1eefru21jh@4ax.com>,
invalid@invalid.invalid mentioned...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:29:12 -0800, Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dark
Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

You should do what I do: whitelist. I haven't had (and will_not_
have) a single spam.

Works just great if you already know who will write to you... limited
number of friends ;-)

...Jim Thompson
You can write to me, even tho you're not a "friend." See .sig.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
In article <uInFb.450978$275.1326132@attbi_s53>,
postmaster@BulkingPro.com mentioned...
"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a4f4005100cdcd7989a58@news.dslextreme.com...

You should do what I do: whitelist. I haven't had (and will_not_
have) a single spam.

This would be much easier if there were adequate support for it in, say,
outlook express. Something like a quarantine area, and the ability to
quickly go through the 'from' addresses and indicate which you like. Also,
having some kind of auto reply that tells people what you are doing, so they
can phone you and get on the white list...
At work we have help desk software that has a nasty habit of sending
an email to our inbox telling us we have something "assigned to you".
Well, after a day of that crap (we're already logged on to the
program, so we don't need email), I simply filtered it to the trash
using Outhouse's filters (using Outlook 2000).

The new version of Outhouse has all the bells and whistles, so you can
do Bayesian filtering etc. We're gonna u/g to XP next year, probably
spring, so I'll be seeing it soon.

I was reading that people are going to get xmas presents of a new PC,
and as soon as they pull it out of the box and plug it in, the damn
worms will infect it because it hasn't got the latest patches. They
say the personal firewall should be enabled _before_ it's plugged into
the net to help prevent this. So watch out for a whole new crop of
zombies.


Regards,
Bob Monsen

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
In article <uInFb.450978$275.1326132@attbi_s53>,
postmaster@BulkingPro.com mentioned...
"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a4f4005100cdcd7989a58@news.dslextreme.com...

You should do what I do: whitelist. I haven't had (and will_not_
have) a single spam.

This would be much easier if there were adequate support for it in, say,
outlook express. Something like a quarantine area, and the ability to
quickly go through the 'from' addresses and indicate which you like. Also,
having some kind of auto reply that tells people what you are doing, so they
can phone you and get on the white list...

Regards,
Bob Monsen
BTW, one thing I forgot to mention is that Mozilla 1.5 has a lot of
new email features and it's free. www.mozilla.org.

Another point is that your ISP could filter, too. But I haven't
checked my email addr at my ISP since I signed up. I haven't ever
used it or given the addr out. I use Hotmail instead. It allows
anyone to write a filter. For free.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@
 
I read in sci.electronics.design that Watson A. Name - Watt Sun, Dark
Remover <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote (in <MPG.1a4fb95a97df5f43989a5c@n
ews.dslextreme.com>) about 'OT (US CITIZENS ONLY): S877 Can Spam Law',
on Sun, 21 Dec 2003:

Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
It wasn't the government (of any country) but IEC TC25. I'm surprised
they didn't realise that it's a mug's game trying to change language
usage, however good the intention. Look at 'RMS power', for example.
first debunked about 50 years ago, but still going strong.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
http://www.isce.org.uk
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top