Camcorder Hard Drive - Find Tips - SALES on Camcorders all Brand Names

syipv5cndu...@gmail.com

unread,

May 7, 2008, 8:01:30 PM5/7/08

to

Three Benefits to Using A Camcorder Hard Drive

Imagine being part of a special wedding ceremony and your
responsibility is to capture the special day on your camcorder. You
begin by filming the events leading up to the ceremony such as the
groom receiving advice from his best man or the special interaction
between the mother and her daughter the bride. Everything is going
smoothly and you are capturing the beautiful and tender moments of the
wedding day.

Camcorder Hard Drive: http://www.camcordersonsale.com/camcorder-hard-drive.html

http://www.camcordersonsale.com/camcorder-accessories.html
Camcorder Accessories

http://www.camcordersonsale.com/camcorder-repair.html
Camcorder Repair

Bob

unread,

May 8, 2008, 9:58:25 AM5/8/08

to

IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!
<syipv5cndu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fb3aacb-9b9f-402f...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 8, 2008, 11:40:15 AM5/8/08

to

"Bob" <bobby...@comcast.net> wrote in news:5GDUj.149445$XH2.65919
@fe03.news.easynews.com:

> IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!

Forward original message with full headers to:

groups...@google.com (original poster's newsgroup account)
ab...@verizon.net (original poster's ISP)
ab...@theplanet.com (original poster's web host for camcordersonsale.com)

><syipv5cndu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7fb3aacb-9b9f-402f-b11a-
b7f203...@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

Message has been deleted

Richard Crowley

unread,

May 8, 2008, 12:00:51 PM5/8/08

to

"Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote ...
> "Bob" <bobby...@comcast.net> wrote :

>
>> IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!
>
> Forward original message with full headers to:

Good luck with that. None of those providers gives a rip.

PLEASE DON'T REGURGITATE THE ENTIRE SPAM
MESSAGE BACK TO THE NEWSGROUP! IT MAKES
YOU JUST AS BAD AS THEM!!

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 8, 2008, 12:37:48 PM5/8/08

to

"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in news:68gmdkF2sv557U1
@mid.individual.net:

> "Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote ...
>> "Bob" <bobby...@comcast.net> wrote :
>>
>>> IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!
>>
>> Forward original message with full headers to:
>
> Good luck with that. None of those providers gives a rip.

Didn't know you were intimately aware of the policies of Verizon and
theplanet.com.

Reporting beats just whining about it.

jaybee

mja

unread,

May 8, 2008, 2:55:25 PM5/8/08

to

Bob wrote:

>IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!
><syipv5cndu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>

Next time you want to reply to an obvious spam / scam - please delete
all the links.

phil-new...@ipal.net

unread,

May 9, 2008, 6:02:09 AM5/9/08

to

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

| "Bob" <bobby...@comcast.net> wrote in news:5GDUj.149445$XH2.65919
| @fe03.news.easynews.com:
|
|> IMAGINE YOU SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!
|
| Forward original message with full headers to:
|
| groups...@google.com (original poster's newsgroup account)
| ab...@verizon.net (original poster's ISP)
| ab...@theplanet.com (original poster's web host for camcordersonsale.com)

You think that will help? All THREE of these have a long and steady
track record of not giving a damn and just ignoring complaints, though
Verizon is know to occaisionally suspend accounts of customers that
have been passing spam through for a while.

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.

Lift the filter every couple months and see if the spamming has stopped.

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 13, 2008, 11:58:04 AM5/13/08

to

phil-new...@ipal.net wrote in news:g017f...@news3.newsguy.com:

> 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.

jaybee

Richard Crowley

unread,

May 13, 2008, 12:24:09 PM5/13/08

to

"Jacques E. Bouchard" wrote ...

> You overestimate the incentive for Google Groups users to
> find a news server.

And conversely GoogleGroups users overestimate our incentive
to respond to (or even read) their postings.

Ken Maltby

unread,

May 13, 2008, 12:26:34 PM5/13/08

to

"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9D79BD59E16je...@63.218.45.252...

Actually it looks like GoogleGroups has poisoned the well
enough that there may be so few NG readers that it becomes
pointless to spam them anymore. By blocking them we may
hasten the day the kooks and spammers abandon
GoogleGroups and their NG spamming efforts. Till then, I
find that the Delete key still works.

Luck;
Ken

clams_casino

unread,

May 13, 2008, 4:10:13 PM5/13/08

to

Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:

Google has actually done newsgroups a big favor. Since Google does
nothing about the spam on google groups, most every spammer now uses
just google groups.

If you filter all google group postings, you can filter some 99.9% of
all the spam on newsgroups.

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2008, 4:34:10 PM5/13/08

to

clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote

> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote
>> phil-new...@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.

Usenet has faded so far past what it was in its heyday, it makes absolutely
no sense to lose a great swag of the remaining non spam posters.

Richard Crowley

unread,

May 13, 2008, 4:51:51 PM5/13/08

to

"Rod Speed" wrote ...
> clams_casino wrote

>> Google has actually done newsgroups a big favor.
>
> Nope.

I wouldn't say "big favor". Certainly the Google Groups
Archives is an enormously important cyber-resource.

However Google's indiscriminate and irresponsible opening
Usenet to the unwashed masses via their web interface seems
mostly negative IMHO.

I know that sounds elitist, but Usenet depends on human common
sense to keep it useful and managable, and that is lost when a big
corporate player like Google (or AOL, etc.) decides to dabble.

>> 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.

Then they can take their chances that people will read their
messages from SpamCentral. No shoes, no shirt, no service.

>> If you filter all google group postings,

Assuming you are using a newsreader that will do that.
Alas, there is no practical way to do that with OE. :-(

>> 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 that chance they take. Good luck to them.
I have little sympathy for them.

> Usenet has faded so far past what it was in its heyday,

I've been using Usenet since before it's "heyday" and it seems
just as useful and vigorous as ever. Perhaps it depends on
which NGs you're reading.

> it makes absolutely no sense to lose a great swag of the
> remaining non spam posters.

Again, perhaps it depends on which NGs you're talking
about. But there are so few legitimate posts from Google
that I wouldn't miss them if they diappeared completely.

clams_casino

unread,

May 13, 2008, 6:09:08 PM5/13/08

to

Rod Speed wrote:

There so few legit googlegroup postings (essentially negligible) -
certainly not worth the advantages of not filtering all google group
postings..

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2008, 7:19:33 PM5/13/08

to

Richard Crowley <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> clams_casino wrote

>>> Google has actually done newsgroups a big favor.

>> Nope.

> I wouldn't say "big favor". Certainly the Google Groups
> Archives is an enormously important cyber-resource.

Different matter entirely to being able to POST from groups google, what is being discussed.

> However Google's indiscriminate and irresponsible opening Usenet to the unwashed masses via their web interface seems
> mostly negative IMHO.

What I said in different words.

> I know that sounds elitist, but Usenet depends on human common sense to keep it useful and managable,

No it doesnt.

> and that is lost when a big corporate player like Google (or AOL, etc.) decides to dabble.

Depends entirely on the specifics of what they do.

If they actually did something about those who post spam using their
service, what you want wouldnt be lost and would be improved by
attracting those who wouldnt otherwise even be aware that usenet exists.

And its perfectly possible for google to work out what is spam too.

>>> 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.

> Then they can take their chances that people will read their
> messages from SpamCentral. No shoes, no shirt, no service.

Or they can tell fools like that one that his approach is terminally stupid.

>>> If you filter all google group postings,

> Assuming you are using a newsreader that will do that.
> Alas, there is no practical way to do that with OE. :-(

Wrong.

>>> 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 that chance they take. Good luck to them.
> I have little sympathy for them.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

>> Usenet has faded so far past what it was in its heyday,

> I've been using Usenet since before it's "heyday" and it seems just as useful and vigorous as ever.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.

The volume is WAY down on what it used to be for starters.

> Perhaps it depends on which NGs you're reading.

Nope, and its trivial to use groups.google to prove that.

>> it makes absolutely no sense to lose a great swag of the remaining non spam posters.

> Again, perhaps it depends on which NGs you're talking about.

Nope, and its trivial to use groups.google to prove that.

> But there are so few legitimate posts from Google
> that I wouldn't miss them if they diappeared completely.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

In spades when you cant even manage to work out which non spam posts are done from there.

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2008, 7:21:18 PM5/13/08

to

clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote

>> Nope.

Wrong, as always.

> certainly not worth the advantages of not filtering all google group postings..

Wrong, as always.

George Grapman

unread,

May 13, 2008, 8:03:05 PM5/13/08

to

clams_casino wrote:
>>
> There so few legit googlegroup postings (essentially negligible) -
> certainly not worth the advantages of not filtering all google group
> postings..

I mainly use google groups to catch up on people who may have replied
to my posts in groups that I do not check that often.
It is also a source of amusement when someone makes a claim and
later denies making that claim. When the link to the original claim is
posted they tend to depart the thread.

Richard Crowley

unread,

May 13, 2008, 8:16:59 PM5/13/08

to

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote ...
> Richard Crowley <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote

>> I know that sounds elitist, but Usenet depends on human common sense to
>> keep it useful and managable,
>
> No it doesnt.

Sure it does. And Google's lack of attention is precisely what
is causing the problem under discussion right now.

>> and that is lost when a big corporate player like Google (or AOL, etc.)
>> decides to dabble.
>
> Depends entirely on the specifics of what they do.

Which in Google's case, appears to be nothing.
And by their own admission, so it isn't just anecdotal
or circumstantial evidence.

> If they actually did something about those who post spam using their
> service, what you want wouldnt be lost and would be improved by
> attracting those who wouldnt otherwise even be aware that usenet exists.

"those who wouldn't otherwise even be aware that usenet exists"
rarely post anything really useful. Not on the NGs that I read.
And I'm not even talking about the spam messages.

> And its perfectly possible for google to work out what is spam too.

Sure it is. But it costs $$$$ to hire people to use their judgement
to decide who the abusers are and how to block them. Google
doesn't want to do that, so we all suffer from their neglect and/or
apathy. That is the problem in a nutshell.

>> Assuming you are using a newsreader that will do that.
>> Alas, there is no practical way to do that with OE. :-(
>
> Wrong.

Without an actual example, it is just a word.

> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant.

I never claimed otherwise, but thanks for noticing. :-)

> The volume is WAY down on what it used to be for starters.

Then I KNOW you are talking about different newsgroups
than I am. I only read less than a dozen newsgroups and
frequently the daily volume is too great to read everything.

It is also springtime here in the northern hemisphere and
more people are doing things outdoors which contributes
to a slight seasonal drop in online traffic. But perhaps you
haven't been using Usenet long enough to notice that.

> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
> irrelevant.

Now you're just repeating yourself.

You might have better credibility youself if you weren't claiming a
gmail return address. GoogleGroups and Gmail are the prime
sources of current Usenet spam. More people are blocking
anything from GoogleGroups and/or from people with gmail
addresses. FYI

Richard Crowley

unread,

May 13, 2008, 8:18:45 PM5/13/08

to

"George Grapman" wrote ...

You appear to be refereing to the Archives functionality
which pre-dated Google's online web-based posting
mechanisms.

Rod Speed

unread,

May 13, 2008, 9:41:43 PM5/13/08

to

Richard Crowley <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Richard Crowley <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote

>>> However Google's indiscriminate and irresponsible opening Usenet to the unwashed masses via their web interface
>>> seems mostly negative IMHO.

>> What I said in different words.

>>> I know that sounds elitist, but Usenet depends on human common sense to keep it useful and managable,

>> No it doesnt.

> Sure it does.

Nope.

> And Google's lack of attention is precisely what
> is causing the problem under discussion right now.

Nothing like what you said previously.

>>> and that is lost when a big corporate player like Google (or AOL, etc.) decides to dabble.

>> Depends entirely on the specifics of what they do.

> Which in Google's case, appears to be nothing.

Yes, but it isnt the only thing they could have done.

So your crap about big corporate players is just that, mindlessly silly crap.

> And by their own admission, so it isn't just anecdotal or circumstantial evidence.

Irrelevant to whether your crap about big corporate players is just that, mindlessly silly crap.

>> If they actually did something about those who post spam using their service, what you want wouldnt be lost and would
>> be improved by attracting those who wouldnt otherwise even be aware that usenet exists.

> "those who wouldn't otherwise even be aware that usenet exists"
> rarely post anything really useful.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

In spades with those who come across usenet because of
google and who then contribute to usenet just like the others
have done who have discovered usenet some other way.

> Not on the NGs that I read.

Then you need to get out more.

> And I'm not even talking about the spam messages.

Sure.

>> And its perfectly possible for google to work out what is spam too.

> Sure it is. But it costs $$$$ to hire people to use their judgement
> to decide who the abusers are and how to block them.

Nope, its perfectly feasible to automate the detection of the worst of it.

> Google doesn't want to do that,

Because of the inevitable cost of that stupid approach.

> so we all suffer from their neglect and/or apathy. That is the problem in a nutshell.

But it doesnt have to always be a problem, in spite of your stupid claim.

>>> Assuming you are using a newsreader that will do that.
>>> Alas, there is no practical way to do that with OE. :-(

>> Wrong.

> Without an actual example, it is just a word.

Its also a fact.

>>>>> 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 that chance they take. Good luck to them.
>>> I have little sympathy for them.

>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> I never claimed otherwise, but thanks for noticing. :-)

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>>> Usenet has faded so far past what it was in its heyday,

>>> I've been using Usenet since before it's "heyday" and it seems just as useful and vigorous as ever.

>> Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to.

>> The volume is WAY down on what it used to be for starters.

> Then I KNOW you are talking about different newsgroups than I am.

Nope.

> I only read less than a dozen newsgroups and frequently the daily volume is too great to read everything.

Only if your lips move when you read.

And irrelevant to your stupid claim about whats happened since its heyday anyway.

> It is also springtime here in the northern hemisphere and
> more people are doing things outdoors which contributes
> to a slight seasonal drop in online traffic. But perhaps you
> haven't been using Usenet long enough to notice that.

Been using it since LONG before you ever have thanks.

>>> But there are so few legitimate posts from Google
>>> that I wouldn't miss them if they diappeared completely.

>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> Now you're just repeating yourself.

It sometimes helps with pig ignorant fools like you.

> You might have better credibility youself if you weren't claiming a gmail return address.

Nope. I use it here just because its spam filtering is much better than the
other free alternatives and I prefer not to fart around with munging the address.

> GoogleGroups and Gmail are the prime sources of current Usenet spam.

Irrelevant to whether its useful in that particular situation.

> More people are blocking anything from GoogleGroups and/or from people with gmail addresses.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

And even someone as stupid as you should be able to see who does reply to my posts.

> FYI

GTE

George Grapman

unread,

May 13, 2008, 9:49:58 PM5/13/08

to

Correct. What used to be dejanews. At that time you posted a message
with your email address and then,like craigslist, they sent you a
confirmation before it was posted.

EdwardATeller

unread,

May 17, 2008, 9:53:34 PM5/17/08

to

Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
guess some won't
see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
because of the
technology I choose to use.

Ken Maltby

unread,

May 17, 2008, 11:17:08 PM5/17/08

to

"EdwardATeller" <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f8d7950d-f5de-49b5...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

What you have to say may not be heard because you
chose to use the same means as so many of the more
noxious posters. People are avoiding the din of the
crazies and those hawking wares and self-aggrandizement.
If you choose to come to the NewsGroups through the
same means as the things that people are avoiding; you
should expect to be cut off when that means is cut off.

While I still keep track of all the postings, I find that
most of the GoogleGroups Spam is easy to spot and
my delete button works well. Also, it makes it easier
to notice and follow threads like this. I try to avoid
posting to these threads though, as it can be a way to
propagate them around the anti GoogleGroup filters.

There are a number of other ways to post to the
News Groups, you need not use Google's service
with its mass News Group posting features.

Luck;
Ken

Paul

unread,

May 17, 2008, 11:35:17 PM5/17/08

to

news.aioe.org - no registration needed. Limited number of text posts per day.
news.motzarella.org - register to use. I used a gmail account for an
email address for registration. Account and password
authenticate the connection of the news reader software
to the site.

AIOE was inoperative for a few days, due to a DNS problem, but is now
up and running again. I use Thunderbird (mozilla.org) for posting to
these servers. For Motzarella, I have to tick the "authenticate" box
in the properties for the connection to the server.

HTH,
Paul

Hal Murray

unread,

May 17, 2008, 11:59:58 PM5/17/08

to

In article <f8d7950d-f5de-49b5...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
EdwardATeller <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> writes:

>Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
>guess some won't
>see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
>because of the
>technology I choose to use.

It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.

The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that
which many spammers use.

Why are you surprised when people consider what you have to
say not important enough to dig out of the spammer infested trash?

--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 18, 2008, 5:48:26 AM5/18/08

to

EdwardATeller <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:f8d7950d-f5de-49b5...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
> guess some won't
> see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
> because of the
> technology I choose to use.

It could be worse. You could be using AOL, in which case some people would
be paralyzed by shock and conniptions and would no doubt invoke the
Natiojnal Guard to restore order to usenet.

Me, I just think it's ironinc that people using Outlook Express for news
would try to pull any elitist routine, seeing how their choice of news
reader would put them slightly below AOl in the usenet food chain according
to the die-hard denizens.

jaybee

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 18, 2008, 5:54:35 AM5/18/08

to

hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote in
news:3aKdnX3H0e4jNLLV...@megapath.net:

> In article
> <f8d7950d-f5de-49b5...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> EdwardATeller <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
>>guess some won't
>>see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
>>because of the
>>technology I choose to use.
>
> It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.
>
> The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that
> which many spammers use.

But the headers are not.

> Why are you surprised when people consider what you have to
> say not important enough to dig out of the spammer infested trash?

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.

jaybee

clams_casino

unread,

May 18, 2008, 6:29:39 AM5/18/08

to

Hal Murray wrote:

>In article <f8d7950d-f5de-49b5...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> EdwardATeller <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups, I
>>guess some won't
>>see this reply. Nice to know that what I have to say is not important
>>because of the
>>technology I choose to use.
>>
>>
>
>It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.
>
>The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that
>which many spammers use.
>
>
>

Actually, it's what most all spammers use.

99.99978656% of all googlegroup newsgroup postings = spam. Filter those
& essentially all newsgroup spam disappears.

Jürgen Exner

unread,

May 18, 2008, 10:29:59 AM5/18/08

to

"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find the task of
>SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging.

Simply a matter of volume: finding 10 meaningful and interesting posts
in 100 is much more cumbersome then finding 10 meaningful and
interesting posts in 20 after you filtered out the 80% of spam.

jue

Message has been deleted

Rod Speed

unread,

May 18, 2008, 2:12:59 PM5/18/08

to

Jacques E. Bouchard <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote

> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote
>> EdwardATeller <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups,

>>> guess some won't see this reply. Nice to know that what I have
>>> to say is not important because of the technology I choose to use.

>> It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.

>> The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that which many spammers use.

> But the headers are not.

>> Why are you surprised when people consider what you have to
>> say not important enough to dig out of the spammer infested trash?

> I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find
> the task of SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging.

They dont, its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.

> 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.

Its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.

Rod Speed

unread,

May 18, 2008, 2:14:40 PM5/18/08

to

Jürgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote

Those numbers are completely bogus with most newsgroups.

Its closer to the reverse numbers with most newsgroups.

Ken Maltby

unread,

May 18, 2008, 5:29:12 PM5/18/08

to

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:69ba0iF...@mid.individual.net...

This may indicate more about the newsgroups you frequent and
the type of post you consider "meaningful", than any reflection on
the state of the usenet. 80% seems low, if we are still talking about
GoogleGroups; from my experience. (Of course, I'm including the
nut cases as well as the spammers.)

Luck;
Ken

Rod Speed

unread,

May 18, 2008, 5:38:02 PM5/18/08

to

Ken Maltby <kma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Jürgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Jacques E. Bouchard <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote

>>>> I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find
>>>> the task of SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging.

>>> Simply a matter of volume: finding 10 meaningful and interesting
>>> posts in 100 is much more cumbersome then finding 10 meaningful
>>> and interesting posts in 20 after you filtered out the 80% of spam.

>> Those numbers are completely bogus with most newsgroups.

>> Its closer to the reverse numbers with most newsgroups.

> This may indicate more about the newsgroups you frequent

Nope, none have numbers anything like his numbers.

> and the type of post you consider "meaningful",

I wasnt commenting on that number, just the number of spam posts.

I could have said that more carefully.

> than any reflection on the state of the usenet. 80% seems low, if we are still talking about GoogleGroups; from my
> experience. (Of course, I'm including the nut cases as well as the spammers.)

I wouldnt even try to comment on the percentage of 'meaningful'
posts, because that varys so much with the reader and its interests.

Ken Maltby

unread,

May 18, 2008, 6:36:01 PM5/18/08

to

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:69b9tdF...@mid.individual.net...

Well it appears that the liberal efforts to boost the "self-esteem" of
the marginally functional have succeeded, all too well again. Everyone
else is "too stupid" or uncoordinated or in some other way, not up to
the exalted intellectual standing of you two. By the way you are both
able to just skip the "meaningless and inconsequential drop in the
ocean that is usenet", anytime now (I doubt you well be missed, and
you seem to believe that it is beneath you.)

Complaining about GoogleGroups facilitating spammers and noting
that they have become the home address of the most annoying kooks,
is an expression of the natural human effort to keep their environment
safe and clean. Complaining is a healthy social mechanism, in most
free societies. (House: "Is he Canadian?") You two seem to have no
problem complaining about our postings, why do you think we shouldn't
complain about GoogleGroups? Wait, don't answer that, I wouldn't
want anyone to think I would put any weight into one of your replies.

Luck;
Ken

Rod Speed

unread,

May 18, 2008, 6:56:10 PM5/18/08

to

Ken Maltby <kma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Jacques E. Bouchard <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote
>>> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote
>>>> EdwardATeller <sorry_n...@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>>> Interesting discussion. Since I am posting from Google Groups,
>>>>> guess some won't see this reply. Nice to know that what I have
>>>>> to say is not important because of the technology I choose to use.

>>>> It's a simple signal-to-noise problem.

Nope, not very simple at all to deal with, essentially
because plenty of non spammers use groups.google.

>>>> The technology you chose is indistinguishable from that which many spammers use.

>>> But the headers are not.

>>>> Why are you surprised when people consider what you have to
>>>> say not important enough to dig out of the spammer infested trash?

>>> I still don't understand why so many people seemingly find
>>> the task of SKIPPING undesirable posts so damn challenging.

>> They dont, its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.

>>> 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.

>> Its more that they're too stupid to do the obvious.

> Well it appears that the liberal efforts to boost the "self-esteem"
> of the marginally functional have succeeded, all too well again.

We'll see...

> Everyone else is "too stupid" or uncoordinated or in some other way, not up to the exalted intellectual standing of
> you two.

Or they really are stupid if they cant manage to skip the obvious spam.

Its not as if the spam doesnt stand out like dogs balls.

Even you should be able to work out which is spam, if someone was
actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

> By the way you are both able to just skip the "meaningless and inconsequential drop in the ocean that is usenet",
> anytime now

Yep. But presumably we dont believe that what
is currently being discussed falls into that category.

> (I doubt you well be missed,

You in spades.

> and you seem to believe that it is beneath you.)

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.

> Complaining about GoogleGroups facilitating spammers and noting that they have become the home address of the most
> annoying kooks, is an expression of the natural human effort to keep their environment safe and clean.

Nothing 'unsafe' about spam in usenet.

> Complaining is a healthy social mechanism, in most free societies.

Rather pointless whining about what aint gunna change just because you whine about it.

> (House: "Is he Canadian?")

Who cares ?

> You two seem to have no problem complaining about our postings,

I havent complained about a damned thing.

> why do you think we shouldn't complain about GoogleGroups?

No one said you couldnt. All anyone has ever done is rubbed your nose in the stupidity
of killfiling all posts from groups.google when its so trivial to skip the spam. Corse you
are always welcome to stop reading newsgroups too any time you like.

> Wait, don't answer that,

Take your demands and shove them where the sun dont shine.

> I wouldn't want anyone to think I would put any weight into one of your replies.

You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

What you might or might not claim to put any weight into in spades.

> Luck;

Dont need luck.

> Ken

Fred Kasner

unread,

May 18, 2008, 8:19:12 PM5/18/08

to

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

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 18, 2008, 8:29:52 PM5/18/08

to

Larry in AZ <use...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9AA2660BA17...@69.28.173.184:

> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jacques E. Bouchard"

><inv...@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.

jaybee

Jacques E. Bouchard

unread,

May 18, 2008, 8:38:05 PM5/18/08

to

"Ken Maltby" <kma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:6vCdneldX9vOMq3V...@giganews.com:

> Well it appears that the liberal efforts to boost the "self-esteem"
of
> the marginally functional have succeeded, all too well again. Everyone
> else is "too stupid" or uncoordinated or in some other way, not up to
> the exalted intellectual standing of you two.

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

> By the way you are both
> able to just skip the "meaningless and inconsequential drop in the
> ocean that is usenet", anytime now (I doubt you well be missed, and
> you seem to believe that it is beneath you.)

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".

> You two seem to have no
> problem complaining about our postings, why do you think we shouldn't
> complain about GoogleGroups?

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.

> Wait, don't answer that, I wouldn't
> want anyone to think I would put any weight into one of your replies.

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

Allen

unread,

May 18, 2008, 9:03:14 PM5/18/08

to

Then don't block. Simple. And I don't believe that I've discarded a
baby, but I've gotten rid of much stuff that is worse than bathwater.
Allen

Allen

unread,

May 18, 2008, 9:06:34 PM5/18/08

to

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

The Real Bev

unread,

May 18, 2008, 9:24:21 PM5/18/08

to

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

Rod Speed

unread,

May 18, 2008, 9:28:31 PM5/18/08

to

The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
>> Larry in AZ <use...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns9AA2660BA17...@69.28.173.184:
>>
>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
>>> <inv...@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.

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

I know that is mindlessly silly because I can see posts from there that arent.

> 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.

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

Message has been deleted

Bill's News

unread,

May 19, 2008, 1:27:53 PM5/19/08

to

"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:68udb8F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Rod Speed" wrote ...

>>> If you filter all google group postings,
>
> Assuming you are using a newsreader that will do that.
> Alas, there is no practical way to do that with OE. :-(
>

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.

Bill's News

unread,

May 19, 2008, 2:06:17 PM5/19/08

to

"Jacques E. Bouchard" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA2D1E79C89Dje...@63.218.45.252...

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.

phil-new...@ipal.net

unread,

May 20, 2008, 8:15:44 AM5/20/08

to

In rec.video.production Jacques E. Bouchard <inv...@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) |

phil-new...@ipal.net

unread,

May 20, 2008, 8:18:52 AM5/20/08

to

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

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.

phil-new...@ipal.net

unread,

May 20, 2008, 8:22:49 AM5/20/08

to

In rec.video.production Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
| clams_casino <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
|> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote
|>> phil-new...@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).

Rod Speed

unread,

May 20, 2008, 2:23:10 PM5/20/08

to

Yes.

> If blocking them now gets them to do these things,

It wont, you watch.

> I'd consider it a success.

Taint gunna happen that way.

Richard Crowley

unread,

May 21, 2008, 12:30:42 AM5/21/08

to

"Bill's News" wrote ...

> 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?

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

unread,

May 21, 2008, 5:08:52 PM5/21/08

to

"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message

news:69hmrkF...@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.

EdwardATeller

unread,

Jun 2, 2008, 4:39:01 PM6/2/08

to

On May 20, 8:22 am, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> In rec.video.production Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> | clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
> |> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote
> |>> 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.

Paul

unread,

Jun 2, 2008, 5:00:22 PM6/2/08

to

EdwardATeller 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.

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

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

Paul

The Real Bev

unread,

Jun 2, 2008, 5:28:11 PM6/2/08

to

EdwardATeller 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.

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.

M.L.

unread,

Jun 3, 2008, 6:02:17 AM6/3/08

to

Your link showed that not all captchas have been broken.