Posting to newsgoups

  • Thread starter Thread starter Syncme
  • Start date Start date
BTW, once the spammers have your address, they never stop sending the
Click to expand...
spam. I haven't posted this address, unmunged, since Oct, 2003, and still
get over a hundred spam per day.
Regards, Dave Hodgins
Click to expand...

I totally agree. I never, ever used my Rogers address for other than
private email......until one day an idiotic acquaintance gave it (and
several other people's) to a Calgary company so he could get money off for a
useless product.

Bingo!! Spam came pouring in from Asia.....and it was soon up to the same
100/day. Oddly enough, there was something in the Star one day about this
bogus outfit and its parent company, which was (surprise) in Asia. Enough
proof for me.

But now that Rogers has spam and virus filters, it matters not. Like Nick
said re his address, mine is out there for genealogical research and I am
not about to change it. I kept my old dialup on for a year in case someone
tried to contact me re genealogy and darned if I didn't hear from a very
important contact at month 11. Solved a lot of brickwalls, so it was worth
it.

Cheers.....Heather
 
it alway depends of wich newgroup you go in like warez or craks wich you
have to be verycarefull if you subscribe to those because lots of em post
links highly infected or waits you with popups attacks. if you subscribe to
news like this one its mostly to get info on protection and how to get rid
of whatever crap or virus, its much less dangerous to get infected or
getting crap. in newsgroup like ppl posting pictures lots of them attaches
virus with .jpg and other pics file or if you use photovac wich is the worst
program to get virus from posted pictures in newsgroups.
 
Syncme wrote:

[Beau wrote:]
I wonder if (e-mail address removed) would do any good :)
Click to expand...

Now, that is a plan! How do you spell that? (e-mail address removed)
Maybe (e-mail address removed) as well.
 
This is Syncme for forever:
I like this ^
Click to expand...

I found that I needed to do this, because: once, when I used to read
another newsgroup, there was an user that replied both to the newsgroup
and to my e-mail.

[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Canoas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil - 29.55° S
/ 51.11° W / GMT-2h / 15m .

"People told me I can't dress like a fairy.
I say, I'm in a rock band and I can do what the hell I want!"
-- Amy Lee

(My e-mail address isn't read. Please reply to the group!)
 
But now that Rogers has spam and virus filters, it matters not. Like Nick
Click to expand...

I use their filter to flag the bulk messages, but have seen too many false
positives, to let them auto delete the spam and viruses.

Regards, Dave Hodgins
 
Mark said:
"consider the possibility that people who want to help others feel it is
more important" to share the problem/solution rather than discuss it
privately.
Click to expand...

my preference is for that, sure, but if someone comes to me for help in
email, then email is where things stay... i'm not going to put up a
barrier to people getting help from me...
 
David W. Hodgins said:
Nick

I use their filter to flag the bulk messages, but have seen too many false
positives, to let them auto delete the spam and viruses.
Click to expand...
Hi Dave......I meant to add that and forgot. It all goes into a Bulk Folder
and I check it. They do fall down on a few, but usually those dratted *send
this to 20 of your best friends in 5 seconds* ones. So no big loss there.

I don't *auto-delete* in OE, Hotmail or Yahoo and no one gets my GMail
account except immediate family, grin.

Cheers......Heather
 
There are simple ways to avoid spam. I only get two or three a day
using the same address that I have used for over ten years.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between not seeing spam and not receiving it. Why
waste bandwidth receiving spam and then waste CPU cycles filtering it
out, when you can take steps to avoid getting it in the first place?
 
There is a difference between not seeing spam and not receiving it. Why
waste bandwidth receiving spam and then waste CPU cycles filtering it
out, when you can take steps to avoid getting it in the first place?
Click to expand...

I don't waste much bandwidth at all because I don't download any
messages greater that 20KB. No binaries, no viruses, no HTML gets
through to me. My ISP filters out most spam using their arrangement
with Brightmail. Not much gets through that needs filtering at my end.
Overnight just one messages needed filtering at my end.


Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
 
I don't waste much bandwidth at all because I don't download any
messages greater that 20KB. No binaries, no viruses, no HTML gets
through to me. My ISP filters out most spam using their arrangement
with Brightmail. Not much gets through that needs filtering at my end.
Overnight just one messages needed filtering at my end.
Click to expand...

Bandwidth is still wasted sending the spam to your mailbox, and
resources are still expended eliminating it.
 
Bandwidth is still wasted sending the spam to your mailbox, and
resources are still expended eliminating it.
Click to expand...

The messages aren't sent to me. Brightmail removes them at the ISP
without ever sending anything to me. The messages are tidied without
sending anything to me.

The only risk is losing messages due to false positives. I checked for
two months and didn't get any so I take the risk.

I believe it is the responsibility of the ISP to keep the message flow
clean. At the moment Demon and Brightmail are keeping my messages
almost spam free.


Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
 
The messages aren't sent to me. Brightmail removes them at the ISP
without ever sending anything to me. The messages are tidied without
sending anything to me.

The only risk is losing messages due to false positives. I checked for
two months and didn't get any so I take the risk.
Click to expand...

Bandwidth is still wasted sending the spam to your ISP. Spam is a waste
of internet resources and the problem doesn't go away just because you
pay someone else to remove it so you don't see it. Better to use an
address that is identifiably invalid so no-one attempts to send mail to
it in the first place.
 
Julian said:
Bandwidth is still wasted sending the spam to your ISP. Spam is a waste
of internet resources and the problem doesn't go away just because you
pay someone else to remove it so you don't see it. Better to use an
address that is identifiably invalid so no-one attempts to send mail to
it in the first place.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the bandwidth problem should be blamed on the
recipient of spam? That it is their fault that the spammers are pouring out
crap to every email address they can find? Do you also suggest that all
valid email addresses be removed from all web sites so that they won't
"waste bandwidth" by providing a target for spammers?

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and I don't begrudge you yours.
It just strikes me as a "blaming the victims for the crime" type of
approach. In my opinion, the fault lies squarely and completely on the
spammers. The bandwith wastage lies on their shoulders and any correction
of the problem should lie with them, not everyone else.

And as far as "identifiably invalid" email addresses, I take it you rarely
deal with newbies? Some of the people who need the most help are also the
least likely to know what to do when confronted with munged addresses.

Just my $0.02 worth....
 
They are sent to you. You just don't get to see them or download them.
The bandwidth is still being used for them to get to your server's inbox.

....
Better to use an address that is identifiably invalid so no-one
attempts to send mail to it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Julian, your mung contains a valid domain name:
http://invalid.net/
Spam generated is probably ending up in the catchall mailbox of the
owner of that domain. I'd suggest using (e-mail address removed) instead.
 
Bandwidth is still wasted sending the spam to your ISP. Spam is a waste
of internet resources and the problem doesn't go away just because you
pay someone else to remove it so you don't see it.
Click to expand...

It's copyright busting large binaries that are soaking up transfer
bandwidth. Almost all spam is made up of small messages.

I don't pay anyone to filter my messages. It's part of the service at
the same price as it was when I signed up about ten years ago.
Better to use an
address that is identifiably invalid so no-one attempts to send mail to
it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Totally impractical. My main address has existed for years and is
already on many spam lists. There is no point in changing it now. My
customers would be inconvenienced by having to edit my addresses or
fill in web forms. I don't edit addresses so why should I expect my
customers to? I hate filling in forms.


Steve Wolstenholme Neural Planner Software
 
Rick said:
So you're saying that the bandwidth problem should be blamed on the
recipient of spam? That it is their fault that the spammers are pouring out
crap to every email address they can find?
Click to expand...

[Rant deleted]

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just suggesting that it wastes less
resources by not putting valid email addresses where they can be
harvested, and using an obviously invalid one where you have to put
something. Using a valid address where there's no need is plain stupid,
because you *know* it's going to generate more spam. There are all kinds
of other ways to let people who read newsgroup posts know how to contact
you if you want them to. The fact that you have software that can save
*you* from dealing with the flood of spam doesn't justify it.
 
Beauregard said:
Julian, your mung contains a valid domain name:
http://invalid.net/
Spam generated is probably ending up in the catchall mailbox of the
owner of that domain. I'd suggest using (e-mail address removed) instead.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I didn't realise that invalid was only invalid as a top level
domain. As you can see, I have already changed it.
 
Back
Top