[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

SPAM

Trans

9/29/2008 12:57:00 PM

We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.

Question: Is Usenet support necessary any longer? I've heard multiple
reports of it being dropped by ISPs. -- I really know very little
about the subject, but I'm just wondering if supporting Usenet is out-
moded/out-dated? Perhaps the more precise question to ask is: Does
anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the mailing
list?

T.
10 Answers

Alex Fenton

9/29/2008 1:22:00 PM

0

Trans wrote:
> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.

The spam is slightly irritating. If you're reading this from the mailing
list, I'd guess there are already plenty of ways you can filter the spam
out yourself. I expect some filtering could be set up on the gateway,
but I'm not offering to do it so I won't expect someone else to.

> Question: Is Usenet support necessary any longer? I've heard multiple
> reports of it being dropped by ISPs. -- I really know very little
> about the subject, but I'm just wondering if supporting Usenet is out-
> moded/out-dated?

No. It's still supported by my ISP (the 2nd largest in the UK, ~4m
subscribers), and my academic institution.

> Perhaps the more precise question to ask is: Does
> anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the mailing
> list?

No-one *actually needs* it. For that matter, we don't need the mailing
list either; we could just have a web forum. With built-in emoticons :)

But Usenet is, to me, a much preferable way to interact with this group.
A high volume list works better as a "pull" technology (Usenet/Web) than
a "push" one (Email), IMO.

a

Robert Klemme

9/29/2008 1:28:00 PM

0

2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <aff28@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
> Trans wrote:
>>
>> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
>
> The spam is slightly irritating. If you're reading this from the mailing
> list, I'd guess there are already plenty of ways you can filter the spam out
> yourself. I expect some filtering could be set up on the gateway, but I'm
> not offering to do it so I won't expect someone else to.

Fully agree. There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.

Alex, I fully agree.

Cheers

robert


--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end

Jeremy Henty

9/29/2008 4:13:00 PM

0

On 2008-09-29, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the
> mailing list?

I've always used comp.lang.ruby . I find it much more convenient than
email.

Regards,

Jeremy Henty

Michael W. Ryder

9/29/2008 6:58:00 PM

0

Trans wrote:
> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
>
> Question: Is Usenet support necessary any longer? I've heard multiple
> reports of it being dropped by ISPs. -- I really know very little
> about the subject, but I'm just wondering if supporting Usenet is out-
> moded/out-dated? Perhaps the more precise question to ask is: Does
> anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the mailing
> list?
>
> T.
>
Personally I prefer using usenet as I don't have to worry about all the
e-mail. I can download the headers when it is convenient for me and
quickly scan them and read those of interest, much as I scan over all
the spam postings. I could live with a mailing list, but would prefer
not to, and will not participate in a web forum.

Robert Dober

9/29/2008 8:13:00 PM

0

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <aff28@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
>> Trans wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
<snip>
> There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
> waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
> bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.
Hmm Robert, might this not have something to do with our mail
providers, I indeed have to agree that gmail's spam filters are quite
effective, so that this does not seem to be a problem...
... for us.
However if others are complaining maybe they cannot filter that effectively=

Robert Klemme

9/29/2008 9:03:00 PM

0

On 29.09.2008 22:13, Robert Dober wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <aff28@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
>>> Trans wrote:
>>>> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
> <snip>
>> There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
>> waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
>> bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.
> Hmm Robert, might this not have something to do with our mail
> providers, I indeed have to agree that gmail's spam filters are quite
> effective, so that this does not seem to be a problem...
> .. for us.
> However if others are complaining maybe they cannot filter that effectively

Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from
c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.

Cheers

robert

Rick DeNatale

9/30/2008 12:41:00 AM

0

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from
> c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.

I suspect that GMail whitelists mail from 'people' in your contacts
list. If you are like me you whatever mail llsts you subscribe to
added as contacts in order to easily post to them.

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denh...

Ryan Neufeld

9/30/2008 4:02:00 AM

0


On 29-Sep-08, at 4:04 PM, Robert Klemme wrote
> Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam
> from c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is
> excellent.
>
> Cheers
>
> robert
>

Hi everyone, just started reading and finally have something to post
on (that I won't make a fool out of myself saying)

While trying to join the ML just this last month I had some troubles
when GMail marked my ruby-talk emails as spam. Just an observation I
thought I might contribute.

Ryan 'jphr' Neufeld
---------------------------
visit me at hammerofcode.com

Randy Kramer

9/30/2008 2:20:00 PM

0

On Monday 29 September 2008 05:04 pm, Robert Klemme wrote:
> Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from
> c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.

Just to provide another viewpoint, I disagree. (Caveat: I haven't
figured out (or tried to figure out) whether I can influence or control
gmail's spam filtering, so maybe I can make it better.)

My problem is too many false positives--emails that I want to receive
and have been dumped in the gmail spam "file".

I also suspect that google (like my impression of yahoo) email filtering
is based not simply on my decisions about what is spam and what is not,
but somehow on a group consensus of some sort. In yahoo, I find very
similar stuff marked spam one day and not the next (or vice versa),
when I've done nothing to influence that "decision".

Randy Kramer
--
I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video
instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al.

Trans

9/30/2008 2:42:00 PM

0



On Sep 29, 4:13=A0pm, "Robert Dober" <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme<shortcut...@googlemail.com=
> wrote:
> > 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <af...@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
> >> Trans wrote:
>
> >>> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
> <snip>
> > There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
> > waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
> > bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.
>
> Hmm Robert, might this not have something to do with our mail
> providers, I indeed have to agree that gmail's spam filters are quite
> effective, so that this does not seem to be a problem...
> ... for us.
> However if others are complaining maybe they cannot filter that effective=
ly.
> Tom maybe you can provide us with more detailed info here?

I manage the Google Group. So I make spam reports and delete messages
manually from the group archive as needed. I've seen approx. 1 to 2
SPAM message a day for a few weeks now, and one day there were 5. It's
not overwhelming (yet), but it is enough to be annoying.

I know it wouldn't be as convenient, but could we make it so that a
Usenet post could not come through the gateway unless the poster was a
member of the mailing list? (That's how it is with Google Groups.
Btw.)

T.