Funny as Hell
Alan Connor
has increased 400%.
I think that it is very clear that the person or persons here that are so
vehemently against the C-R system are actually spammers or in their employ.
Not one of the spams made it past my filters, and most of them went to
/dev/null.
To the persons responsible I have this to say:
Kiss my ass and get a life.
Alan
--
There's no place like ~
Sahil Tandon
> Since the spam thread began, the amount of spam I have received at this address
> has increased 400%.
I assume you logged this information in order to arrive at the abovementioned
percentage. Can you make a few days worth (perhaps starting right before the
hike of spam activity) of these logs available to the curious?
Regards,
--
Sahil Tandon <sa...@brandeis.edu>
http://people.brandeis.edu/~sahil
Sam
> Since the spam thread began, the amount of spam I have received at this address
> has increased 400%.
I thought you weren't getting any spam at all, due to your amazing spam
filter, right?
> I think that it is very clear that the person or persons here that are so
> vehemently against the C-R system are actually spammers or in their employ.
No, what's clear is that your tin foil needs an adjustment. Something's
leaking through.
ynotssor
news:X0DRa.7091$Mc.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
> Since the spam thread began, the amount of spam I have received at
> this address has increased 400%.
>
> I think that it is very clear that the person or persons here that
> are so vehemently against the C-R system are actually spammers or in
> their employ.
[...]
> Kiss my ass and get a life.
I think it far more likely that the fact of your email address being plainly displayed in your slrn headers has allowed the spambots
an easy prey. You seem to be under the illusion that munging your "From:" header is going to keep the spambots from harvesting your
"Reply-To:" header address.
From: Alan Connor <xxx...@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: Funny as Hell
Reply-To: alanc...@earthlink.net
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
May I suggest an attitude adjustment on your part? You insulted Mssr. Claus Aßmann which was a major faux pas, as he is one of the
world's foremost authorities in the matter of smtp transport, and now you further demonstrate your ignorance by charging some
hypothetical antagonist with the results of your own ignorance about your use of your news client.
It is *you* who should "get a life".
--
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Alan Connor
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> Since the spam thread began, the amount of spam I have received at this address
>> has increased 400%.
>
> I assume you logged this information in order to arrive at the abovementioned
> percentage. Can you make a few days worth (perhaps starting right before the
> hike of spam activity) of these logs available to the curious?
>
> Regards,
No. You can believe me or not. I couldn't care less.
Alan Connor
> "Alan Connor" <xxx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:X0DRa.7091$Mc.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>
>> Since the spam thread began, the amount of spam I have received at
>> this address has increased 400%.
>>
>> I think that it is very clear that the person or persons here that
>> are so vehemently against the C-R system are actually spammers or in
>> their employ.
> [...]
>> Kiss my ass and get a life.
>
> I think it far more likely that the fact of your email address being plainly displayed in your slrn headers has allowed the spambots
> an easy prey. You seem to be under the illusion that munging your "From:" header is going to keep the spambots from harvesting your
> "Reply-To:" header address.
>
> From: Alan Connor <xxx...@xxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Funny as Hell
> Reply-To: alanc...@earthlink.net
> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
>
> May I suggest an attitude adjustment on your part? You insulted Mssr. Claus Aßmann which was a major faux pas, as he is one of the
> world's foremost authorities in the matter of smtp transport, and now you further demonstrate your ignorance by charging some
> hypothetical antagonist with the results of your own ignorance about your use of your news client.
>
> It is *you* who should "get a life".
>
> --
>
>
YOU should get a brain. I was OBVIOUSLY comparing the spam I got at this
address with what I got before this thread began and afterwards. I have been
posting on Usenet for quite a while with the same headers.
So it is okay for YOU to insult people that post things that YOU regard as
in-error, but when *I* do it, it is wrong?
Get lost, you arrogant hypocrite.
Alan Connor
>
>> Since the spam thread began, the amount of spam I have received at this address
>> has increased 400%.
>
> I assume you logged this information in order to arrive at the abovementioned
> percentage. Can you make a few days worth (perhaps starting right before the
> hike of spam activity) of these logs available to the curious?
>
> Regards,
If you had asked all of the other parties to this multiple thread to provide
proof of their assertions, then I would have respected your request.
The fact that you didn't indicates a prejudice that would only result in you
calling what I posted a forgery.
See? Thinking really does work.
ynotssor
>> I think it far more likely that the fact of your email address being
>> plainly displayed in your slrn headers has allowed the spambots an
>> easy prey. You seem to be under the illusion that munging your
>> "From:" header is going to keep the spambots from harvesting your
>> "Reply-To:" header address.
>>
>> From: Alan Connor <xxx...@xxxx.xxx>
>> Subject: Funny as Hell
>> Reply-To: alanc...@earthlink.net
>> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
>>
>> May I suggest an attitude adjustment on your part? You insulted
>> Mssr. Claus Aßmann which was a major faux pas, as he is one of the
>> world's foremost authorities in the matter of smtp transport, and
>> now you further demonstrate your ignorance by charging some
>> hypothetical antagonist with the results of your own ignorance about
>> your use of your news client.
>>
>> It is *you* who should "get a life".
> So it is okay for YOU to insult people that post things that YOU
> regard as
> in-error, but when *I* do it, it is wrong?
<*plonk*>
--
use hotmail com for any email replies
Alan Connor
> "Alan Connor" <xxx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:t%HRa.106945$Io.91...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net
>
>>> I think it far more likely that the fact of your email address being
>>> plainly displayed in your slrn headers has allowed the spambots an
>>> easy prey. You seem to be under the illusion that munging your
>>> "From:" header is going to keep the spambots from harvesting your
>>> "Reply-To:" header address.
>>>
>>> From: Alan Connor <xxx...@xxxx.xxx>
>>> Subject: Funny as Hell
>>> Reply-To: alanc...@earthlink.net
>>> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.3 (Linux)
>>>
>>> May I suggest an attitude adjustment on your part? You insulted
>>> Mssr. Claus Aßmann which was a major faux pas, as he is one of the
>>> world's foremost authorities in the matter of smtp transport, and
>>> now you further demonstrate your ignorance by charging some
>>> hypothetical antagonist with the results of your own ignorance about
>>> your use of your news client.
>>>
>>> It is *you* who should "get a life".
>
>> So it is okay for YOU to insult people that post things that YOU
>> regard as
>> in-error, but when *I* do it, it is wrong?
>
><*plonk*>
> --
Run and hide, little man.
Sahil Tandon
> If you had asked all of the other parties to this multiple thread to provide
> proof of their assertions, then I would have respected your request.
I am neither interested in your respect, nor trying to insult you by taking
sides. Incidentally, asking everyone to prove their assertations is obviously
impractical -- I (and likely others) have better things to do. I requested
logs because I'm interested in your particular case of a sudden leap in spam
activity. Stop being defensive; if I wanted to take a genuine stab at you, I
would've done it earlier in the thread.
> The fact that you didn't indicates a prejudice that would only result in you
> calling what I posted a forgery.
How did you come to such an absurd conclusion? In fact, you didn't post any
logs whatsoever, so there was no forgery; simply an uncorroborated claim about
an enormous increase in spam.
> See? Thinking really does work.
You're especially arrogant for someone who, in a post to me less than two weeks
ago, admitted being a near newbie:
Alan Connor <xxx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Right on, Sahil
>
> I'm barely past being a newbie and use procmail/formail to block ALL spam
[...]
Regards,
--
Sahil Tandon <sa...@despammed.com>
http://people.brandeis.edu/~sahil
Alan Connor
All of this REALLY seems like just an attempt to get people to think that
the C-R system is a bad one.
It isn't. In fact, it is the ONLY system around that actually works.
I am a newbie compared to a guru.
Once again, the enemies of the enemies of spam simple cannot use logic but
must resort to ad hominem attacks...
Now take a look at the scripts I have posted here, and tell me just how many
newbies you know that could write those...
Or will you claim that you just hadn't seen them?
See? Thinking really DOES work.
Theresa Green
T
"Alan Connor" <xxx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:X0DRa.7091$Mc.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Sahil Tandon
> All of this REALLY seems like just an attempt to get people to think that
> the C-R system is a bad one.
I made no such attempt; perhaps others have earlier in the thread.
> I am a newbie compared to a guru.
This is evident.
> Once again, the enemies of the enemies of spam simple cannot use logic but
> must resort to ad hominem attacks...
I hate spam.
> Now take a look at the scripts I have posted here, and tell me just how many
> newbies you know that could write those...
Like I mentioned before, I sincerely am not plotting against you. I did take
a cursory look at your script, and will thoroughly check it out over the
weekend.
> See? Thinking really DOES work.
You seriously need to relax with the defensive me-against-the-world attitude.
Alan Connor
;-)
Alan Connor
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>> All of this REALLY seems like just an attempt to get people to think that
>> the C-R system is a bad one.
>
> I made no such attempt; perhaps others have earlier in the thread.
>
>> I am a newbie compared to a guru.
>
> This is evident.
Hmmmmm....A little insult?
How come YOU get spam and *I* don't?
>
>> Once again, the enemies of the enemies of spam simple cannot use logic but
>> must resort to ad hominem attacks...
>
> I hate spam.
>
>> Now take a look at the scripts I have posted here, and tell me just how many
>> newbies you know that could write those...
>
> Like I mentioned before, I sincerely am not plotting against you. I did take
> a cursory look at your script, and will thoroughly check it out over the
> weekend.
>
They are no great shakes. Bare functionality.
If you need more than a couple of minutes to "check them out" then you are
not much more advanced than I am.
>> See? Thinking really DOES work.
>
> You seriously need to relax with the defensive me-against-the-world attitude.
>
And YOU need to develop a sense of humor. Theresa gets it, why don't you?
> Regards,
Likewise,
Alan Connor
You want to hear something REALLY funny?
The excess 'spam' I have been getting since these related threads started are
not really spam at all, but are from a single person....
But they can't get through to my mailboxes AND they can't respond with one
of my one-time passwords because this would give away their actual email
address and reveal the fact that it isn't really spam!!!!
Heehee: Got 'em by the short-hairs :-)
Sahil Tandon
>>> I am a newbie compared to a guru.
>> This is evident.
> Hmmmmm....A little insult?
Not at all; just a simple statement. Again, stop being so defensive.
> How come YOU get spam and *I* don't?
I thought you said you did get spam, and in fact 400% more in recent days? I
hate spam, yes; therefore I do everything I can to stop it. Most spam coming
my way goes to /dev/null, and *very* rarely does it ever make it through to my
mailbox. Before you start boasting about how no spam makes it to yours,
seriously consider the fact that the filtering system you vehemently advocate
is highly impractical for people like myself. For example, what if you hand
your resume out to a few people, and then have a potential employer contact you
via email? Perhaps if you're applying to some tech job, the employer will be
impressed (or at least not terribly annoyed) by your question-response system;
otherwise, most employers would be rather irritated -- for they're trying to do
you a favor and you're effectively asking them to jump through another hurdle
just to get in touch. Yes, I know, you'll respond with something like "well it
works for me, and that's all I care about", but that doesn't matter; the system
is not ready for practical widespread use.
> They are no great shakes. Bare functionality.
Agreed.
> If you need more than a couple of minutes to "check them out" then you are
> not much more advanced than I am.
Your way of measuring advancement -- through your opinion and nothing more --
is rather flawed. Nonetheless, some of us don't have a "couple of minutes" to
look at a script during the week. I have a job that takes up most of my day
(rather, most of my life). Therefore, I have limited time to use a computer,
during which time I have to prioritize many other tasks prior to looking at
your script. I did look at it today, and as mentioned above, it's impractical
for my use.
> And YOU need to develop a sense of humor. Theresa gets it, why don't you?
Ha. You developed an estimation of my sense of humor through reading a few
posts? Interesting.
Alan Connor
> Alan Connor wrote:
>
>>>> I am a newbie compared to a guru.
>>> This is evident.
>> Hmmmmm....A little insult?
>
> Not at all; just a simple statement. Again, stop being so defensive.
>
Perhaps YOU should just run your own life......No, I insist.
>> How come YOU get spam and *I* don't?
>
> I thought you said you did get spam, and in fact 400% more in recent days?
It appears that you are just not qualified to discuss these mattters, since
you don't know what logging is.
I > hate spam, yes; therefore I do everything I can to stop it. Most spam coming
> my way goes to /dev/null, and *very* rarely does it ever make it through to my
> mailbox. Before you start boasting about how no spam makes it to yours,
> seriously consider the fact that the filtering system you vehemently advocate
> is highly impractical for people like myself. For example, what if you hand
> your resume out to a few people, and then have a potential employer contact you
> via email? Perhaps if you're applying to some tech job, the employer will be
> impressed (or at least not terribly annoyed) by your question-response system;
> otherwise, most employers would be rather irritated -- for they're trying to do
> you a favor and you're effectively asking them to jump through another hurdle
> just to get in touch. Yes, I know, you'll respond with something like "well it
> works for me, and that's all I care about", but that doesn't matter; the system
> is not ready for practical widespread use.
>
First of all, employeres make MONEY from employees and are hardly doing them
a favor.
Second-of-all, why would anyone want to work for someone that wasn't willing
to do such a small thing to eliminate spam?
You don't even know what logging is and you presume to pass judgement on this
system. Pardon me while I have a litte laugh.
>> They are no great shakes. Bare functionality.
>
> Agreed.
>
I don't think that you can tell a script from a granola recipe.
>> If you need more than a couple of minutes to "check them out" then you are
>> not much more advanced than I am.
>
> Your way of measuring advancement -- through your opinion and nothing more --
> is rather flawed. Nonetheless, some of us don't have a "couple of minutes" to
> look at a script during the week. I have a job that takes up most of my day
> (rather, most of my life). Therefore, I have limited time to use a computer,
> during which time I have to prioritize many other tasks prior to looking at
> your script. I did look at it today, and as mentioned above, it's impractical
> for my use.
>
>> And YOU need to develop a sense of humor. Theresa gets it, why don't you?
>
> Ha. You developed an estimation of my sense of humor through reading a few
> posts? Interesting.
>
> Regards,
A wage-slave presumes to talk down to a person who is intelligent enough to
to own their own life and to do what they want with it? Who answers to no one
but themself?
Pretty damned funny. But I doubt that YOU will get it.
Please go bore someone else with your pretentious posts. No, I insist.
Alan
--
For Linux/Bash users: Eliminate spam from your life
with Password-Protected-Mailboxes. I have the scripts
and docs for anyone that wants them.
Sahil Tandon
> It appears that you are just not qualified to discuss these mattters, since
> you don't know what logging is.
Now you're a self-proclaimed specialist on qualifications?
> First of all, employeres make MONEY from employees and are hardly doing them
> a favor.
Wrong.
> Second-of-all, why would anyone want to work for someone that wasn't willing
> to do such a small thing to eliminate spam?
Are you so obtuse as to measure the attractiveness of a job by whether or not a
recruiter takes part in your little spam filter?
> You don't even know what logging is and you presume to pass judgement on this
> system. Pardon me while I have a litte laugh.
It's sad -- you really get a kick out of your own (lack of) humor.
> Please go bore someone else with your pretentious posts. No, I insist.
Actually, you're boring. This is my last post in the thread. Grow up. No,
*I* insist.