On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:23:20 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote in <4a5b89a8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:31:14 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>> wrote in <4a5ac6a2$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:25:30 +0200, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote in <MPG.24bfb9c36180ba6298c08e@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <t5s9559t5pl8njvuqnhetb623v9oan3nhh@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I and others have carefully tested this and found no significant
>>>>>> evidence of current email address harvesting from Usenet. This email
>>>>>> address, for example, gets no more spam than my other email addresses.
>>>>>> And even if it were true, quoting an email address that's already been
>>>>>> posted doesn't contribute to spam, since the toothpaste is already out
>>>>>> of the tube (from the original post).
>>>>> Somebody made a test some time ago, posting a (throw-away) email address
>>>>> in usenet. He started receiving spam within hours.
>>>> Why not actually try it yourself, rather than relying on a rumor?
>>> I've done it, & started getting lots of spam after about two days.
>>
>> When?
>
>About 4 months or so ago. I've also had similar experiences in the past,
>when I've posted with a new address.
Yet my own posting email address, which I've been using for many months,
gets no more spam than my other email addresses. Go figure.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:23:20 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a5b89a8$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:31:14 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in <4a5ac6a2$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>>
>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:25:30 +0200, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote in <MPG.24bfb9c36180ba6298c08e@news.supernews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <t5s9559t5pl8njvuqnhetb623v9oan3nhh@4ax.com>, John Navas
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I and others have carefully tested this and found no significant
>>>>>>> evidence of current email address harvesting from Usenet. This email
>>>>>>> address, for example, gets no more spam than my other email addresses.
>>>>>>> And even if it were true, quoting an email address that's already been
>>>>>>> posted doesn't contribute to spam, since the toothpaste is already out
>>>>>>> of the tube (from the original post).
>>>>>> Somebody made a test some time ago, posting a (throw-away) email address
>>>>>> in usenet. He started receiving spam within hours.
>>>>> Why not actually try it yourself, rather than relying on a rumor?
>>>> I've done it, & started getting lots of spam after about two days.
>>> When?
>> About 4 months or so ago. I've also had similar experiences in the past,
>> when I've posted with a new address.
>
> Yet my own posting email address, which I've been using for many months,
> gets no more spam than my other email addresses. Go figure.
Well, I guess it's a question of what level of spam you consider normal.
I have email addresses that have never been used on Usenet that get no
spam at all.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Playing With Trolls wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:34:51 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dorfgang is a Troll wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:45:22 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> <ozcvgtt02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> but you cannot hide well enough in Minneapolis.
>>> LOL! The useless pretend-photographer troll doesn't even have the right
>>> country, let alone anything else right about the rest of his imaginary
>>> optics crap. What an aproxymation. :-)
>> You're in Duluth, Minnesota.
>
> Wow! Cool! I've always wanted to visit there. I wonder what it's like.
Sure you have. Either you or your ISP is based there.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:03:57 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote in <4a5c3bed$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Yet my own posting email address, which I've been using for many months,
>> gets no more spam than my other email addresses. Go figure.
>
>Well, I guess it's a question of what level of spam you consider normal.
>I have email addresses that have never been used on Usenet that get no
>spam at all.
I get only one or two a week on average.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
> Many people I know use disposable Usenet addresses that are junked after
> a few months or whenever the spam levels become unbareable. This
> threshold depends critically on how good your ISPs spam filters are.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
Hello, Martin:
I've been including my name and e-mail address, at the bottom of
Usenet messages, since my first year online (1996). Yet, I didn't
begin receiving huge numbers (i.e., many hundreds or more) of daily
spam missives, until circa 2002.
For instance, I was hospitalized for four days, in October of 2000.
When I finally got home and downloaded my e-mail, I was greeted by
a grand total of 50+ junk letters...which I considered a high number,
at the time!
Eventually, in May, 2003, I started using "MailMinder," a freeware
anti-spam program; it allows me to cope with the garbage, at least.
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jtur@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
John Turco wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
>> Many people I know use disposable Usenet addresses that are junked after
>> a few months or whenever the spam levels become unbareable. This
>> threshold depends critically on how good your ISPs spam filters are.
>
> Hello, Martin:
>
> I've been including my name and e-mail address, at the bottom of
> Usenet messages, since my first year online (1996). Yet, I didn't
> begin receiving huge numbers (i.e., many hundreds or more) of daily
> spam missives, until circa 2002.
I've been around since 1994 and before that on Compuserve. It didn't get
really critical for me until the Swen trojan at the end of 2003. I had
posted with my standard email addresses unmunged up to that point
admittedly with some clever filters to zap the obvious dross which was
growing exponentially in the later years.
September 2003 was the tipping point for me. Even with broadband and an
unlimited mailbox allocation on a raw feed the junk was arriving nearly
as fast as a heuristic based automatic deleter could remove it. The peak
load exceeded 1GB/day so that was a lot of spam.
I wasn't the worst affected either. Others whose names and email
addresses appeared in more widely circulated documents got even more!
>
> For instance, I was hospitalized for four days, in October of 2000.
> When I finally got home and downloaded my e-mail, I was greeted by
> a grand total of 50+ junk letters...which I considered a high number,
> at the time!
>
> Eventually, in May, 2003, I started using "MailMinder," a freeware
> anti-spam program; it allows me to cope with the garbage, at least.
These days I allow my ISP's Cloudmark system to pre-fliter the feed
which removes a lot of the chaff. A Bayes categoriser does the final
pass and I still have a few custom rules as well.
Re: Future of the megapixel race 
Linear Mode
