EdwardATeller wrote:
Hey Dr. Teller,
You should not be posting here. This NG is for the living only. You died
on 2003 at the age of 95. I know that since I was one of your students
at the U. of Chicago and follow the careers of all the people I knew there.
FK

Larry in AZ <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9AA2660BA1791thefrogprince@69.28.173.184:

A more akin analogy would be to ripping out all the sod so you don't have
to deal with dog shit...

Mind you, I'm not asking anyone to justify their wholesale killfiling of
Google Groups posts. I just find it amusing that so many people find
pride in making the announcement that they've just thrown out the baby
with the bath water.


jaybee

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:6vCdneldX9vOMq3VnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@giganews.com :

Wrangle that knee there, Hopalong Cassidy. I never used the word
"stupid" in reference to anyone here.

I do skip posts I find undesirable, every day. I don't quite understand,
however, how that should somehow marginalize me to a place where I would
not "be missed".

Again, please refrain from making this a "us vs. you" issue. I (nor the
world) am not out to get you, so by all means feel free to resist the
urge to take the offensive.

Besides, the issue isn't whether spammers use Google Groups, but whether
one gains or loses by killfiling all posts originating from Google Groups
- including the legitimate ones.

In their effort to justify their actions, a lot of the killfilers have
attempted to denigrate the "legitimate" posters by making it sound like
it's their fault, through some flaw of their own, for posting through the
web service. Personally, I find the practice transparent and childish.
But I'm not surprised at the mob mentality of usenet.

Well of course not, because in a simplistic world there is only room for
one camp being right and one camp being wrong, I've so far failed to
pledge total allegiance to the killfiling camp.


jaybee

Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
baby, but I've gotten rid of much stuff that is worse than bathwater.
Allen

Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
By George, I believe that I've found another address to add to my
killfile. No baby in that bathwater, for sure. Goodbye.
Allen

Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:

Consider the possibility that people who go to the website to access
usenet probably have nothing to say that we might be interested in.

This is NOT the same as using a gmail address, but refers only to the
inclusion of 'googlegroups' in various message headers. It is
unfortunate that thunderbird does not, as yet, allow killfiling on
anything but 'subject', 'sender' and 'date', none of which is of any use
in ridding oneself of the googlegroups users, whether spammers or merely
clueless.

--
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster."
-- Greg Lemond

The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
I know that is mindlessly silly because I can see posts from there that arent.

No one cares what you're stupid enough to want to do so mindlessly.

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:68udb8F2u9h97U1@mid.individual.net...
The version of OE (6.00.2900.5512) used here seems to provide
for such filtering and way more. Which version are you using,
Richard?

I don't mind in the least that I may not see a non-spammer
posting from google or yahoo. However, a few spammers
occasionally slip through the filters I've set so far. They are
seldom worth the time to pattern their behavior to new filters.
Unless of course they become more irritating.

If I'm unable to devise a filter, there is always content
searching before reading the posts available. Which you might
note, by the 6 days between your post and this reply, in my case
is sometimes weekly.

"Jacques E. Bouchard" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA2D1E79C89Djebouchard451yahooca@63.218.4 5.252...

Many of my friends in our residential community use low cost
dial-up to access the net. Several of those use a dial-up
service which does not provide a news server. I've suggested to
each of them who wants to access groups, such as this, that they
use google. In so doing they will also be able to see posts
and replies made from outside of google as well - but obviously
not all outside posts and replies. I doubt they miss what's not
seen any more than I miss not seeing their posts. There are
possibly no-cost alternatives to using google groups for them,
but I don't know what they may be.

There have undoubtedly been absolutely brilliant or entertaining
or provocative posts made by googlers and other access points
which I've missed. Some due to filtering, some due to sheer
volume and unwisely worded subject lines. The day still goes on
as the earth spins.

In rec.video.production Jacques E. Bouchard <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

| I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find the task of
| SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging. Maybe they're chewing gum
| at the same time and can't muster the concentration. Or maybe it's the
| way some people have of making a big show of killfiling, as if to give
| some meaning to their otherwise meaningless and inconsequential drop in
| the ocean that is usenet.

If there were just a few spam posts, skipping them would not be a problem.
But (some?) spammers are flooding (at least some) newsgroups with so much
spam that it becomes hard to find legitimate posts. Instead of having a
screen or two of legitimate threads, I see a flood of many screens of spam.

It also slows down loading up the threads when changing groups (I read more
than one group).

It also drives some people away from Usenet.

The volume of spam could also be overloading some Usenet NNTP links and
result in additional delays. If we don't get this under control, it will.

"Just press D to delete" has never worked for email spam. Why would the
equivalent work for Usenet?

Google does have smart content analysis programs that can rather effectively
detect spam. They use it on INCOMING email. They need to start using it on
OUTGOING email _and_ on Usenet posts. Even if they used it only on accounts
that are "new" (in terms of when first being used to send email or do posts,
not in terms of when registered), it can dramatically reduce the spam. Once
an account has established a "reputation" over time of NOT spamming, then the
analysis applied on that account can be reduced and eventually eliminated.

Google _can_ do these things. If blocking them now gets them to do these
things, I'd consider it a success.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In rec.video.production Jacques E. Bouchard <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
| Larry in AZ <usenet2@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in
| news:Xns9AA2660BA1791thefrogprince@69.28.173.184:
|
|> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
|><invalid@invalid.invalid> said:
|>
|>> I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find the task
|>> of SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging. Maybe they're
|>> chewing gum at the same time and can't muster the concentration.
|>
|> Let's see if I can explain it with an analogy...
|>
|> I don't want to have to step around the neighbor's dog shit in my
|> yard. I want to keep his dog out of my yard.
|>
|> Therefore, I filter out all newsgroup posts from google groups...
|
| A more akin analogy would be to ripping out all the sod so you don't have
| to deal with dog shit...
|
| Mind you, I'm not asking anyone to justify their wholesale killfiling of
| Google Groups posts. I just find it amusing that so many people find
| pride in making the announcement that they've just thrown out the baby
| with the bath water.

It's in my signature not as a badge of pride, but to inform those who are
choosing to mix their posts in with the spam why it is their posts may not
be read. Based on a few emails I've gotten so far asking for help in how
to do this, it seems at least several people are doing this blocking. My
only advice to them is to turn it off on occaision to gauge how much of the
spam continues to flood Usenet.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In rec.video.production Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
| clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
|> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote
|>> phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote
|
|>>> The solution is to put "googlegroups.com" in to match against the
|>>> message ID header, and block everything that comes from there. Most is spam, some is just lame lusers, and the very
|>>> few smart people that have been using it because they like web interfaces will figure out another place to post
|>>> from.
|
|>> The solution is to learn to skip messages with titles that are obviously spam. You overestimate the incentive for
|>> Google Groups users to find a news server.
|
|> Google has actually done newsgroups a big favor.
|
| Nope.
|
|> Since Google does nothing about the spam on google groups, most every spammer now uses just google groups.
|
| Yes, but so do plenty of non spam posters too.
|
|> If you filter all google group postings, you can filter some 99.9% of all the spam on newsgroups.
|
| And lose all the non spam posters who choose to post from there too.

That's why I didn't jump to doing the blocking the first day of the flood.
But it got worse. A lot worse. And Google was choosing to not apply some
technology it has to deal with it (e.g. do content analysis on outgoing).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
Yes.

It wont, you watch.

Taint gunna happen that way.

"Bill's News" wrote ...
My office machine here is using 6.00.2900.2180 (SP2)
I'll have to check which version I'm using at home.
So what exactly is the mechanism?

2180 won't block arbitrary email addresses
It also won't block wild-card email addresses
It also doesn't provide for filtering on most
header info.

"Bill's News" wrote ...
I'm certain that there are precious gems and valuable metals
(gold, etc.) that end up in the landfill every day, also. But I
don't see many (any?) people out there digging through the
muck on the chance they will strike gold.

"Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote ...
I guess I've never cared what the "die-hard denizens" think.
I'll use whatever news client I please and filter whomever I
please. It is still a free country, at least until November.

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:69hmrkF336savU1@mid.individual.net...
You're certainly right in those complaints, however, you replied
to a suggestion to "filter all google groups" that "there is no
practical way to do that with OE."

The OE news filter "where from line contains people" can include
just the source ISP address and its prefixed @, which traps all
messages from that source. The action chosen can then be
"delete" or "mark as read" whichever you prefer. As debated in
this thread, the delete method sacrifices reception of
non-spammer messages as well - however, if you choose "mark as
read," at least those un-highlighted messages which elicit a
Usenet response are then within your focus. Having found a
blocked group poster who you've enjoyed reading, you could then
add an OE filter to accept his/her posts BEFORE applying the
kill all filter. I'm not aware of a limit to the number of
specific addresses allowed in a filter, though I'm sure there is
one. I have well over a hundred folder routed addresses in my
e-mail filters. I also use these filters to color code certain
senders and sources.

It would be great if OE would automate the content scans,
however, infrequent newsgroup visitors might find it convenient
to do manual scans for chosen criteria before beginning to read.

Sadly, OE is dead with the arrival of MS' new OS. Perhaps some
of these desirable filters will find their way in to the new
reader, should vista EVER become worthy. Perhaps one or more of
those good programmers who've written OE add-on code would
consider expanding its filters to include a solution to your
reasonable complaints.

On May 20, 8:22 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
I've learned a lot from this thread. FYI, in order to post this from
GoogleGroups, I have to type in
one of those challenge words to prove I am human. Not sure how new
this is, but maybe it'll cut
down on the GoogleNews Spam.

EdwardATeller wrote:

Captcha checks have been broken. It is more of a nuisance, than
a real barrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

Paul

EdwardATeller wrote:

You're lucky I saw this!

I had just signed up with a free newsfeed that claimed to have
eliminated all posts made from the googlegroups website. Unfortunately,
it eliminated a lot of ordinary non-googlegroups posts. Bad news...

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ============
Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don't. Some can't.