I thought I had been Joe-jobbed, I was wrong it is Thanksgiving w/e in the USA
Wm...
I thought I'd been Joe-jobbed when I saw:
===
Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:16:22 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server 127.0.0.1, 21 messages accepted, 3495 rejected
Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:16:22 3495 messages deleted from POP3 server, 43 messages remain
===
So I thunked a bit and then realised -- it is turkey day w/e in Merka.
Spend convivial time with family and friends? No, send a shitload of
spam.
Final proof that spammers don't have family or friends, I think.
Dragging my thoughts back to this group I wonder how I would have dealt
with the deluge if I was on a dial-up.
I think I'd probably ask for configurable filtering at the demon end ...
I'm not saying I want it now but I think those of us (yes, that includes
me) that say "No! No! No!" might have to rethink at some point. I think
it would have taken many hours for someone on a dial-up to have rejected
what I did -- it took a while here.
Perhaps those of us with broadband connections should start thinking
about the people that don't or can't make high speed connections.
I know this has been raised here before but it struck me today.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Stan Medcraft
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
get has crept up recently from a daily 10/12 to a current 60/70.
Irritating but still manageable. If I ever experienced a download
approaching the number you received today I would immediately take
myself out of the email regime altogether.
I shall follow this thread with much interest.
--
Stan Medcraft (Reply to address is valid.)
David Lord
news...@nospam.demon.co.uk "Stan Medcraft" wrote:
<snipped>
Just by posting you will receive both UCE and 'Swen' virus email
to that address and in the case of 'Swen' to your reply-to also.
At least on dialup there wasn't much chance I'd fill the disk :-(
I hope the current upsurge in UCE is just a blip. There is very
little getting through but just to delete what remains on the
server is taking a several minutes each time I collect mail.
David
--
David Lord - da...@lordynet.demon.co.uk
Peter Hill
<noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>"Only" 60/70? Stop posting to usenet while you're still ahead.
>
>Dave
Ceasing to post to usenet won't stop the ba***ds spamming you. I'm
getting about 5 a day sent to each of 4 addresses like peters.nnn@
that I haven't used for 2 years. The only good spammer is a dead
spammer.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!
Rod Neep
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>
>===
>Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:16:22 Finished collecting mail from POP3 server
>127.0.0.1, 21 messages accepted, 3495 rejected
>Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:16:22 3495 messages deleted from POP3 server,
>43 messages remain
>===
>
>So I thunked a bit and then realised -- it is turkey day w/e in Merka.
>
>Spend convivial time with family and friends? No, send a shitload of
>spam.
>
>Final proof that spammers don't have family or friends, I think.
>
>Dragging my thoughts back to this group I wonder how I would have dealt
>with the deluge if I was on a dial-up.
>
>I think I'd probably ask for configurable filtering at the demon end
>... I'm not saying I want it now but I think those of us (yes, that
>includes me) that say "No! No! No!" might have to rethink at some
>point.
Ah! .... thank you !!!
>I think it would have taken many hours for someone on a dial-up to have
>rejected what I did -- it took a while here.
>
>Perhaps those of us with broadband connections should start thinking
>about the people that don't or can't make high speed connections.
Correct....
>
>I know this has been raised here before but it struck me today.
Dead right we have discussed it before. ;-)
..... cue for the "don't censor me" brigade to jump back in again with
their feeble objections.
Rod
Jim Crowther
>Perhaps those of us with broadband connections should start thinking
>about the people that don't or can't make high speed connections.
I remember dial-up well, and still (when travelling) use it. I have
always considered bandwidth usage when sending e-mails. All binaries I
refer to are on web-space.
>I know this has been raised here before but it struck me today.
At last?
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Avoid more swen by dumping your old Usenet addresses, and
put 'spam' or 'delete' somewhere in the Reply-to: header.
Help yourself avoid the spam: <http://keir.net/k9.html>
Jim Crowther
>I'm on a SDU and the amount of spam mails I get has crept up recently
>from a daily 10/12 to a current 60/70. Irritating but still manageable.
Read and implement the advice in my .sig. I am getting tired of
pointing out the (by now) obvious.
>If I ever experienced a download approaching the number you received
>today I would immediately take myself out of the email regime
>altogether.
Attempts are made to send me about 500 spam e-mails a day.
About 3 or 4 a week get through.
I'm now rather complacent (yeah, dangerous) about spam, but it seems to
work...
Jim Crowther
<rnDELE...@neep.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In message <T1lJWzGz4hy$Ew...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
[]
>>I think I'd probably ask for configurable filtering at the demon end
>>... I'm not saying I want it now but I think those of us (yes, that
>>includes me) that say "No! No! No!" might have to rethink at some point.
>
>Ah! .... thank you !!!
>
>>I think it would have taken many hours for someone on a dial-up to
>>have rejected what I did -- it took a while here.
>>
>>Perhaps those of us with broadband connections should start thinking
>>about the people that don't or can't make high speed connections.
>
>Correct....
>
>>
>>I know this has been raised here before but it struck me today.
>
>Dead right we have discussed it before. ;-)
>
>..... cue for the "don't censor me" brigade to jump back in again with
>their feeble objections.
Try using the advice that has been freely available for some months, and
for most of the content for years. See .sig.
Wm...
demon.service Jim Crowther <Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>In message <T1lJWzGz4hy$Ew...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>, Wm...
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>
>>Perhaps those of us with broadband connections should start thinking
>>about the people that don't or can't make high speed connections.
>
>I remember dial-up well, and still (when travelling) use it. I have
>always considered bandwidth usage when sending e-mails. All binaries I
>refer to are on web-space.
Well done. Did I say anything about binaries?
>>I know this has been raised here before but it struck me today.
>
>At last?
No, but I can rethink.
If I was on a dial-up I'd only pull e-mail names I know about and leave
the rest for Demon to deal with after the 30 or so days.
My thinking now is this: a demon user provides a set of e-mail names to
demon that demon should accept e-mail for (yes, those names may receive
spam and I am not expecting demon to decide what is spam) I would be
saying "fred" "mary" "little-joe" @ are ok but send everything else
away.
I am still against demon deciding message A is spam and message B isn't
which is what other people have asked for.
A simple list of "I would like Demon to accept e-mails to somethings@
and demon is free to reject the rest" would make general sense I think.
The misspelling of e-mail names issue is, I think, a red herring. Most
people are used to writing to people with hotmail, etc. addresses where
a letter misplaced means it goes to the wrong person or nowhere.
I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing a
test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
Chris Lawrence
> I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing a
> test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
That's great, the only problem being is that it isn't going to happen.
Demon will not be offering this service ever, end of story. So you can
either live with it or move your email to a service provider which does
offer such a facility.
--
Chris
Jim Crowther
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing
>a test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
If Demon was my main connectivity provider, I would agree.
They won't do it for lowly SDU customers [and some other terminal
niggles], so my account will sadly, and with some aggro my end, be
terminated within six weeks.
The Crack Demon Accounts Dept allowing this, of course.
Martin Brown
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>demon.service Jim Crowther <Don't_bo...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
>
>>In message <T1lJWzGz4hy$Ew...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>, Wm...
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes:
>>
>>>Perhaps those of us with broadband connections should start thinking
>>>about the people that don't or can't make high speed connections.
>>
>>I remember dial-up well, and still (when travelling) use it.
The wet string round here only just manages to support dial-up :(
>>>I know this has been raised here before but it struck me today.
>>
>>At last?
>
>No, but I can rethink.
>
>If I was on a dial-up I'd only pull e-mail names I know about and leave
>the rest for Demon to deal with after the 30 or so days.
I thought about that option at the initial peak of Swen. When my Demon
inbox swelled to nearly 1GB over the first weekend. But I decided that
it was OK as a brief protest but didn't really help the situation.
>
>My thinking now is this: a demon user provides a set of e-mail names to
>demon that demon should accept e-mail for (yes, those names may receive
>spam and I am not expecting demon to decide what is spam) I would be
>saying "fred" "mary" "little-joe" @ are ok but send everything else away.
That is probably too restrictive. People make too many spelling mistakes
in email addresses. I'd be more favourably inclined to them providing a
specific range of addresses on all domains that were always bounced. eg.
|||nospam*@whatever.demon.co.uk
And for that matter if Demon's AUP really permits its customers to use
nospam.d.c.u that it was officially recommended as a basic munged
configuration for Usenet postings so that the next batch of Swen like
Trojans will bounce harmlessly off a non existent domain.
>
>I am still against demon deciding message A is spam and message B isn't
>which is what other people have asked for.
I'd like them to try and classify and tag the all most obvious ones and
hostile binaries but still have an opt out. Targeting the top ten spam
scams would make a big difference to SNR. They probably include:
Big5 encoded, HGH, Joke Calls, Viagra, US Mortgage, Penis, Porno,
TeenSex, Viruses
>
>A simple list of "I would like Demon to accept e-mails to somethings@
>and demon is free to reject the rest" would make general sense I think.
>
>The misspelling of e-mail names issue is, I think, a red herring. Most
>people are used to writing to people with hotmail, etc. addresses where
>a letter misplaced means it goes to the wrong person or nowhere.
It does happen though. I guess how much of a nuisance it is depends on
the individual names. My wife has a name that is very easily misspelled.
>I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing
>a test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
I'd rather have it the other way round and vote for a certain special
range of email names to always be rejected.
Regards,
--
Martin Brown
Ed Maher
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2Q5DLuA7BJz$Ew...@nezumi.demon.co.uk...
>
[snip]
> >My thinking now is this: a demon user provides a set of e-mail names to
> >demon that demon should accept e-mail for (yes, those names may receive
> >spam and I am not expecting demon to decide what is spam) I would be
> >saying "fred" "mary" "little-joe" @ are ok but send everything else away.
>
> That is probably too restrictive. People make too many spelling mistakes
> in email addresses.
Yes, and the mail sent to mis-spelt addresses would be bounced, as they are
with other mail systems which operate as intended.
> I'd be more favourably inclined to them providing a
> specific range of addresses on all domains that were always bounced. eg.
>
> |||nospam*@whatever.demon.co.uk
I suspect this would be tricky to configure for those people who get
email sent to usenet message ids, which invariably appear random.
> And for that matter if Demon's AUP really permits its customers to use
> nospam.d.c.u that it was officially recommended as a basic munged
> configuration for Usenet postings so that the next batch of Swen like
> Trojans will bounce harmlessly off a non existent domain.
> >
> >I am still against demon deciding message A is spam and message B isn't
> >which is what other people have asked for.
Indeed, there is a big difference between discriminating between
valid and invaid addresses, and between spam and not spam.
[snip]
> >
> >A simple list of "I would like Demon to accept e-mails to somethings@
> >and demon is free to reject the rest" would make general sense I think.
> >
> >The misspelling of e-mail names issue is, I think, a red herring. Most
> >people are used to writing to people with hotmail, etc. addresses where
> >a letter misplaced means it goes to the wrong person or nowhere.
Most often gets bounced if not delivered, rather than going nowhere,
and this is what should happen.
> It does happen though. I guess how much of a nuisance it is depends on
> the individual names. My wife has a name that is very easily misspelled.
Then she may consider using an email address that is not so easily
misspelled,
an abbreviation, initials, or shortname.
> >I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing
> >a test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
>
> I'd rather have it the other way round and vote for a certain special
> range of email names to always be rejected.
This is a bit backward to front - most end user mail-servers have mailboxes,
if the mail cannot be delivered to a well defined mailbox, it gets bounced,
it's very simple, and is the way many commercial mail servers are
configured.
I don't expect there is someone at IBM sorting through mis-addressed email
trying to work out who its intended recipient may have been, they just have
the mailserver bounce the messages. Years ago the postmaster may have
been sent a copy, but I expect that it is more common not to bother.
In the Demon case, the customer is supposed to provide this end-user
mailbox, but the model may now have been shown to be unworkable
in present times with the high volume of rubbish sent to people with
slow connections. - Demon may need to adapt or these people will go
elsewhere.
Ed.
Dr John Stockton
news:demon.service, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> posted at
Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:07:57 :-
>
>No, but I can rethink.
>
>If I was on a dial-up I'd only pull e-mail names I know about and leave
>the rest for Demon to deal with after the 30 or so days.
That does cost Demon storage space; and would prove annoying if you were
forced to use WebMail one day.
>My thinking now is this: a demon user provides a set of e-mail names to
>demon that demon should accept e-mail for (yes, those names may receive
>spam and I am not expecting demon to decide what is spam) I would be
>saying "fred" "mary" "little-joe" @ are ok but send everything else
>away.
>
>I am still against demon deciding message A is spam and message B isn't
>which is what other people have asked for.
>
>A simple list of "I would like Demon to accept e-mails to somethings@
>and demon is free to reject the rest" would make general sense I think.
>
>The misspelling of e-mail names issue is, I think, a red herring. Most
>people are used to writing to people with hotmail, etc. addresses where
>a letter misplaced means it goes to the wrong person or nowhere.
>
>I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing a
>test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
It is good to see that you have been converted.
There are two additions that should in different circumstances help.
One would be to automatically reject items addressed to a specific
*partial* left part (by RegExp, or by simple mask). You might find
rejection on RegExp /Ew..@/i match helpful.
Another would be to accept/reject on the basis of numerical comparison
of the numeric part of the left part (difficult by RegExp). I could
tell some correspondents to use the current MJD as the left part, and
ask for rejection of all numerics outside, say 52950 to 530000, updating
that choice monthly; others might prefer something simpler.
It would be to Demon's benefit, IMHO, to apply these rules before
putting mail into their mailstore; OTOH, users might wish to upload
their latest rule set before each mail collection (it could be
restricted in size).
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Julia Jones
Morrison <scra...@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:00:10 +0000, in article
><4910895.D...@robinton.llondel.org> "Dave {Reply Address in.sig}"
><noone$$@llondel.org> wrote:
>
>> In message <20031130.2...@lordynet.demon.co.uk>, David Lord wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the current upsurge in UCE is just a blip. There is very
>>> little getting through but just to delete what remains on the
>>> server is taking a several minutes each time I collect mail.
>>>
>> US businesses the legal right to spam everyone until asked to stop. So
>> that's going to be tens of millions of opt-outs you'll have to send.
>>
>> I guess we know what most US residents will be doing for most of next
>> year...
>
>Maybe it will be like the don't call list where the DMA went to court on a
>technicality after they discovered that 43 million people had asked to be
>added to the list.
>
>One can but hope, although I agree that it won't be pretty.
>
No, the "I can spam with impunity" act sets things to the situation on
phones *before* the national Do Not Call list went into effect - you
have to ask each and every individual nuisance caller not to do it
again, please.
I can't really say whether there's been a drop in telemarketing calls,
since I've got a job now. But my impression from my days off is that
it's dropped significantly.
--
Julia Jones
"The Syndicate" - a heartwarming tale of geek love among the stars. Volumes 1
and 2 available now from http://www.amatory-ink.co.uk Details and free sample
chapters at http://www.julesjones.com/fiction/syndicate/syndicate.htm
Wm...
<Pine.WNT.4.58.03...@holodeck3.holosys.wlan> demon.service
Chris Lawrence <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid>
>On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Wm... wrote:
>
>> I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing a
>> test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
>
>That's great, the only problem being is that it isn't going to happen.
>Demon will not be offering this service ever, end of story.
You presume, I think. If enough people want something they may listen.
I don't want to or need to pay for filtering but some people might.
> So you can
>either live with it or move your email to a service provider which does
>offer such a facility.
Living with it is actually fine for me with ADSL. I was trying to think
of other people.
Chris Lawrence
> >> I think, in conclusion for now, that I would support demon introducing a
> >> test to allow only certain e-mail names to not be rejected.
> >
> >That's great, the only problem being is that it isn't going to happen.
> >Demon will not be offering this service ever, end of story.
>
> You presume, I think. If enough people want something they may listen.
Erm, no.
--
Chris
Wm...
Chris Lawrence <new...@holosys.co.uk.invalid>
>On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Wm... wrote:
I said "may"