Greetings,
Some, or many, here disapprove of anonymous postings. I did an
experiment. Created a free email account several weeks ago. No mail in it,
never used it. Few days ago I added the address line to my wreck sig.
Here's what I found in that dormant box this morning.
---
Mail Delivery Subsystem Returned mail: see transcript for details 24 Nov 2004 7k
Pen Xkw Identical pharmaceuticals - low monetary value! 23 Nov 2004 1k
Dannie Deapdry Organic amplify your penis product! 23 Nov 2004 1k
Claudius Jhenb Our company trust, that is what you postulate. 23 Nov 2004 2k
Gabriel Gvadbo Save 90 % and much more with your prescriptions 23 Nov 2004 1k
The Post Office Delivery reports about your email [FAILED(1)] 22 Nov 2004 17k
Veronica Igin All specific at 0.21Euro for dose 22 Nov 2004 2k
Maximilian Gkit AoL Search - Rolex Replicas 21 Nov 2004 1k
---
My conclusion? I hate spam, and spammers' 'bots. I'll stay anonymous. It's
simply easier than building ever more complex filters and firewalls. I'll
cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
regards,
RL
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
"LRod" wrote in message
> No, he's just another anonymous coward claiming spam as his excuse.
I just make it hard for machines, scriptkiddies, and the lazy.
A relatively determined 6th grader, with minimum computer skills, could use
a combination of Goggled wRec messages and one web page visit to not only
send me e-mail, but score a picture, or two.
But what's in a name? .. apparently a SSAN is all that REALLY counts these
days.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> a medium where there is no absolute means of, or even reason for,
> "name" verification.
Sorry for joining into this thread so late. "Anonymity" is my pet peeve
about what's wrong with the whole Internet/newsgroup/e-mail thing. I
would like to see anonymity eliminated completely through removing any
ISPs that allow themselves to be used to aid anonymous posting of
*ANYTHING*.
In that "perfect world", there could not exist SPAM, VIRUSES, TROLLS,
or (CHILD) PORNOGRAPHERS. By removing those ISPs, then you also remove
the need for *good* *people* to try so desperately to hide their
identities from the twats who use them to add so much misery to this
global communication system which is the greatest thing since bread,
sliced or otherwise.
Gerry < still a utopian, even at his age >
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
> > Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
>
> Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
> with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
Is it your perception that because someone posts using an apparently
real name they are more credible?
I have no way of know whether your legal name is "Dave Hinz", nor does
it affect your credibility.
The *content* of your posts affects your credibility.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:56:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The concentric e-mail address that I used to use when posting is up to
>about 125 to 200 spams per day that the concentric filter catches and tags
>as [junkmail].
One option is to sign up with a service that is generous with
aliases and periodically change the alias you use for Usenet,
say Mark101 then Mark102, etc. That lets people get to you
that you want to let get to you but kills off most of the spam
as well. Then use another alias altogether for vendors.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:00:44 -0500, Bob Haar <[email protected]>
wrote:
>However, I do have a problem with advice or comments from someone who won't
>give his/her name.
>
Why? Do you plan to sue the person if the advice turns out bad?
Do you suppose Norm Abrams or Roy Underhill would use their real name
if they participated in the wreck? Or are they above all this?
TWS
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
> Greetings,
> Some, or many, here disapprove of anonymous postings. I did an
> experiment. Created a free email account several weeks ago.
(snip)
> My conclusion? I hate spam, and spammers' 'bots. I'll stay anonymous. It's
> simply easier than building ever more complex filters and firewalls. I'll
> cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
Well...
I've been down the "let's try to filter everything" road, and it's a
pain in the ass, yes. About 2 years ago, I signed up for spamcop.net
as a mail filtering service. I get about 100 spam a day, and all but
1 or 2 are held in the "suspect spam" folder. I've never had a real
message go into that folder, and they make it easy to report the spam
that leaks through so _they_ can tweak their filters for all of their
subscribers. I apply 16 or 17 realtime blackhole lists to my filters,
and it works _very_ well. 30 or 40 bucks a year.
Another option, if you're running windows and have an always-on
internet connection (not dialup) is a challenge/response system.
I've used ZAEP (zaep.com), and it works well. Unless one of your
friends who you have whitelisted (or who has whitelisted themselves)
turns into a spammer, it's going to be 100%. Easy install, shareware,
and again, 30 or 40 bucks to buy.
Lots of good solutions out there. Hiding your identity is one way to
avoid spam, but being reachable, while still being protected, is preferable
to me.
Dave Hinz
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
> Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
And please don't top-post. It makes quoting in context difficult.
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 20:41:24 GMT, TWS <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:00:44 -0500, Bob Haar <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>However, I do have a problem with advice or comments from someone who won't
>>give his/her name.
>>
> Why? Do you plan to sue the person if the advice turns out bad?
No, but it decreases the value of the advice from "this person I have
dealt with for a while and who seems to be logical", to "some guy
calling himself "[email protected]". The thing with the anon
identities, is that they've all been used, and they all blur together
after a while. It's impossible to build a reputation when you're
undifferentiated.
> Do you suppose Norm Abrams or Roy Underhill would use their real name
> if they participated in the wreck?
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:30:39 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>
>> It's impossible to build a reputation when you're
>> undifferentiated.
>
> May be difficultt, but not "impossible" ... how many Matthews, Marks,
> Lukes, or Johns do you know? Now tell me that some aren't "differentialted".
If there's someone posting as "John", and there's another someone posting
as "John", it is to be expected that people may not notice it's two
different people called "John". If some is posting as "[email protected]",
it's likely that people have encountered _other_ people posting as "me@
nospam.com", and it's hard to know (or care) if it's the same one, or
not.
> "What's in a name? The poet is Wilde, but his poetry's tame."
When the name, or absence of a name, gets in the way of communication,
that kind of defeats the purpose of participating in a medium which has
the primary purpose of communicating.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:44:26 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
> Arrogance, by any other name criticizes form not content....
George, my primary message was that you blur into every other anonymous
poster by being anonymous. My note about you top-posting is because
that also makes your communication less effective. See, I'd like to
include what I wrote, so that your response is in context, but it's
down at the bottom and unless I manually re-arrange things, it's
all upside-down, sideways, and backwards.
In your case, neither the message, _nor_ the messanger, seem to matter.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:21:40 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>>
>> When the name, or absence of a name, gets in the way of communication,
>> that kind of defeats the purpose of participating in a medium which has
>> the primary purpose of communicating.
>
> I would say that anyone who lets the absence of a name" "get in the way" is
> arguably not open to communication, particularly in a medium where there is
> no absolute means of, or even reason for, "name" verification.
And I would say, that even if you don't agree with the reasons for
the bias about people who don't put a name behind their words, that
it still does exist.
Dave Hinz
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:44:19 -0500, Waldo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Only for johny-come-lately's. Go back 8 or 10 years and top posting was
> the norm.
Yes, 8 or 10 years ago, there were also people obliviously top-posting.
Most of 'em figured it out eventually. Obviously, those who were oblivious
then, may still be oblivious today.
> If you are following a thread you tend to remember what was
> said before and having to constantly scroll down is a pain in the finger
> (insert an appropriate word to replace 'finger' if you wish) to read
> replies. Replies within previous responses was always acceptable as it
> is today.
Every FAQ I've read, today or a dozen years ago, advocated trimming of
unneeded message rather than lazily including it at the end.
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:57:28 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
>> with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
>
> Is it your perception that because someone posts using an apparently
> real name they are more credible?
Well, they're certainly more _distinguishable_. [email protected] looks like
[email protected] looks like [email protected] and so on. And I would argue
that if one anonymous poster can't readily be distinguised from others,
that it makes that person harder to identify (recognize, if you will).
If you can't recognize someone, it's just "some guy said" quality of
advice, rather than "Dave Balderstone said...".
> I have no way of know whether your legal name is "Dave Hinz", nor does
> it affect your credibility.
Well, it's David, actually, as I suspect yours is too.
> The *content* of your posts affects your credibility.
That too.
Dave Hinz
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:49:55 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Path: uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!p01!fed1read01.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.646
Oh look, I'm running Windows now.
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.0.160.212
> On 29 Nov 2004 16:08:58 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Well, they're certainly more _distinguishable_. [email protected] looks like
>>[email protected] looks like [email protected] and so on.
>
> hey Dave, this is usenet. just assume that every post is anonymous and
> that nobody here is who they say they are. it's the nature of the
> medium that identity is pretty much irrelevant and content is
> everything.
And yet, you have so little confidence in your point of view that you
have to post this under _my_ name. Pathetic.
> if a post is garbage, pass on it. if it's useful, use it.
> insisting that everybody identify themselves to you is arrogant
> egotistical pissing in the wind.
I'm not insisting on anything, I'm pointing out that people who hide
who they are behind a name that looks like everyone else who hides
what they're saying, won't be taken as seriously as if they at least
distinguished themselves.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:18:49 GMT, TWS <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:55:51 +0000, LRod
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>No, he's just another anonymous coward claiming spam as his excuse.
>>Bullshit. My email address is easily discerned on usenet and is on
>>every single one of the 400+ pages on my website.
>Well good for you. You play with loaded pistols too?
If you consider the fun of target shooting to only be effective when
the pistols are loaded, then yes. Otherwise, your comment has no
value.
>Pretty strong words for a guy who is simply protecting himself
>from all the spammers who mine these newsgroups for email addresses.
Please. You sound like a person who thinks that having an unlisted
phone number prevents telephone solicitation. Wake up and join the
20th Century. Telephone solicitors dial numbers in sequence. They
don't need a directory listing.
Spam is often done the same way. I have gotten spam addressed to me
and cc'd to fifteen or twenty variations of my actual email name.
Obviously that spam would have reached me if I'd never posted once
with my real email address.
>I could give a hoot if he wants to keep his email address to himself.
>If he's got something to say that's relevant to the wreck then this is
>the place to say it - I don't need his email, home address, or
>telephone number to share ideas with the guy.
My point is that he claims he will email any human. So how does that
happen? How do I get ahold of him? He has no email address (that's
discernible. I can only assume he wants me to post mine and then he'll
email me. He wants me to do what he's too frightened to do. He wants
me to expose myself without exposing himself. I say again, bullshit.
>TWS - a guy who is also cowardly keeping (some of) the spammers away.
'Some of' is right.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Only for johny-come-lately's. Go back 8 or 10 years and top posting was
the norm. If you are following a thread you tend to remember what was
said before and having to constantly scroll down is a pain in the finger
(insert an appropriate word to replace 'finger' if you wish) to read
replies. Replies within previous responses was always acceptable as it
is today.
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>
>>Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
>
>
> Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
> with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
>
> And please don't top-post. It makes quoting in context difficult.
>
Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
"Bob Haar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BDCA529C.159B2B%[email protected]...
> However, I do have a problem with advice or comments from someone who
won't
> give his/her name.
>
So you suspend your powers of reason in deference to authority? Or is it
just cronyism?
Nope, information on its merits, people on their capacity to learn.
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
>
> That's not true for a lot of people. All you have to do is look at one
> of the political threads with a focus on news anchors for a general
> example.
>
> For me, when Nahmie or David Eisan or Keith or a number of other
> people I lend a lot more credibility to their posts (pousts, David)
> than I do to a nameless hit-and-run poster with an alleged email
> address of [email protected] whoever that might be.
>
> Same with spelling, if you want to start another debate.
>
> - -
> LRod
>
> Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
>
> Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
>
> http://www.woodbutcher.net
Arrogance, by any other name criticizes form not content....
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
> > Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
>
> Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
> with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
>
> And please don't top-post. It makes quoting in context difficult.
>
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:42:43 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>LRod wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
>>
>> How?
>
>
>Person to person contact or email; not by newsgroup. I'm with him. My nomme de
>plume is one of the worst kept secrets but it keeps the spam at bay. That's the
>reason I use it. It also keeps the Board of Nursing off my ass if I write
>something politically (gasp) incorrect.
No, you have a nom de web. Your email address, however, is there to
see, as you say. You are not anonymous. I can contact you by email and
proceed to the name sharing stage. That makes you not anonymous; just
circumspect.
A-P, however, not only uses a nom de web, but a fake email address,
and is thus truly anonymous.
My point was that he claims that "[he]'ll cheerfully give my real
email address to humans," yet there's no vehicle by which I can
ascertain that he could do that. Oh, except, I suppose, we ask HIM to
write US by divulging OUR email...well, yeah, that's fair.
No, he's just another anonymous coward claiming spam as his excuse.
Bullshit. My email address is easily discerned on usenet and is on
every single one of the 400+ pages on my website. Although I get
perhaps a dozen or even two spams per day, I don't consider that an
onerous workload to manage. The <DEL> key is very effective with my
email client.
By the way, I've apparently won several European lotteries recently (I
say apparently because there's evidently been some mixup of names and
numbers in every one of them...what are the odds?), and if I commit
just the slightest bit of misrepresentation, I'm entitled to a hefty
percentage of some former oil baron's obscene profits.
Sadly, my opportunities for a longer dick, bigger tits, lower mortgage
rates, and cheaper pills have dramatically diminished in the last
year, probably due to anti-spam measures implemented by my ISP.
Although, I can still get that degree I've been working on...
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
In article <[email protected]>,
Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:58:09 +0000, patrick conroy wrote:
>
>> Some folks choose to have unlisted telephone numbers. That's fine by me.
>> I do think posting with you're real name or a "thinly veiled" nom de'
>> newsgroups is valuable.
>
>I'll think about it. Thanks for your comments.
>
*Technique* counts!
I post with a valid, unmunged, e-mail address, and have for years. The
_same_ address, in fact.
See, I've got the next-best thing to a 'psychic mail-server'. <grin>
*IF* you 'reply' to one of my postings, from =inside= your news-reader,
It is almost certain that I'll see it.
If somebody 'scrapes' that address, and tries to send mail to it -directly-,
The incoming message is _rejected_ by my mail-server, with the error-code
telling a _person_ how they can send mail that will get through.
To date, _that_ system has not had even a -single- 'false positive'.
*NOBODY* has used the method described in the error message.
"LRod" wrote in message ...
> If people would learn to trim the fluff, top posting wouldn't even be
> an issue.
Bingo! I might also add that, despite all the p*ssing and moaning about MS
products over the years, I can't recall *any* reader that jumps to BOF in
the display. But I agree with LRod, I get really p*ssed scrolling through a
long post in a thread I have already read, which quotes every post, and has
a single word or sentence at the bottom. I'd rather top posters any day.
Greg
On 2004/11/24 8:56 AM, "Australopithecus scobis" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> My conclusion? I hate spam, and spammers' 'bots. I'll stay anonymous. It's
> simply easier than building ever more complex filters and firewalls. I'll
> cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
The delete function in my mail client works very effectively on SPAM. You
might be bothered by it in you inbox, but I have never had a problem.
However, I do have a problem with advice or comments from someone who won't
give his/her name.
One funny thing is that my wife, who never use Usenet and emails only to a
small circle of friends, gets several times the amount of SPAM that I do,
even though I have been participating in USENET for about 30 years using my
real name and and a real email address. Hiding behind a fake address does
little to prevent SPAM.
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
> It's impossible to build a reputation when you're
> undifferentiated.
May be difficultt, but not "impossible" ... how many Matthews, Marks,
Lukes, or Johns do you know? Now tell me that some aren't "differentialted".
"What's in a name? The poet is Wilde, but his poetry's tame."
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Waldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Only for johny-come-lately's. Go back 8 or 10 years and top posting was
> the norm. If you are following a thread you tend to remember what was said
> before and having to constantly scroll down is a pain in the finger
> (insert an appropriate word to replace 'finger' if you wish) to read
> replies. Replies within previous responses was always acceptable as it is
> today.
I'm thinking some one should learn to get along.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>
>> And I would say, that even if you don't agree with the reasons for
>> the bias about people who don't put a name behind their words, that
>> it still does exist.
>
> And I would say, that that is their loss.
I am not one that judges others by their appearance, Dave seems to be that
kind of person.
"Bruce Farley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Could you send me one of your CD's?! Either Leon would be fine.
> Bruce
>
> Leon wrote:
Sure, they are in the e-mail... LOL
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LRod wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
>>
>> How?
>
>
> Person to person contact or email; not by newsgroup. I'm with him. My
> nomme de plume is one of the worst kept secrets but it keeps the spam at
> bay. That's the reason I use it. It also keeps the Board of Nursing off
> my ass if I write something politically (gasp) incorrect.
Person to person e-mail does not go directly to the intended recipient as it
is first held by the ISP.
"Waldo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Only for johny-come-lately's. Go back 8 or 10 years and top posting was
> the norm. If you are following a thread you tend to remember what was
> said before and having to constantly scroll down is a pain in the finger
> (insert an appropriate word to replace 'finger' if you wish) to read
> replies. Replies within previous responses was always acceptable as it
> is today.
>
Not at all. Top posting has always been looked down upon in Usenet for the
reason of following a discussion. Usenet has been around a lot longer than
Microsoft and it was Microsoft who introduced the top posting crap with
their poor readers. It has only been since the advent of Microsoft readers
that top posting has become the issue that it is today. But then again...
trimming has always been a considerate behavior as well. A concept that is
lost on a lot of bottom posters these days.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"G.E.R.R.Y." wrote in message
> In that "perfect world", there could not exist SPAM, VIRUSES, TROLLS,
> or (CHILD) PORNOGRAPHERS.
In the "perfect world", I would even offer to let you pay yourself out of my
bank account. :)
> Gerry < still a utopian, even at his age >
The older I get, the more I become the mirror image opposite.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
Could you send me one of your CD's?! Either Leon would be fine.
Bruce
Leon wrote:
> "Bob Haar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BDCA529C.159B2B%[email protected]...
>
> If I told you my name was Leon Redbone or Leon Russel would that make my
> comments or advice more credible to you?
>
>
>
"Bob Haar" wrote in message
> However, I do have a problem with advice or comments from someone who
won't
> give his/her name.
That's too bad. At least a couple of the most profound, learned works of all
time were done on a 'first name only', anonymous basis. Go no further than
the wRec on a daily basis to know that an included "name" doesn't guarantee
good advice or comments.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>> Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
>
> Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
> with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
Is that any different from being blured in with all the people that post
with their full names? I think the credibility hit would be real if the
person reading an anonymous post needed instructions to pour you know what
out of a boot. That person would probably be suspitious.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
That's not true for a lot of people. All you have to do is look at one
of the political threads with a focus on news anchors for a general
example.
For me, when Nahmie or David Eisan or Keith or a number of other
people I lend a lot more credibility to their posts (pousts, David)
than I do to a nameless hit-and-run poster with an alleged email
address of [email protected] whoever that might be.
Same with spelling, if you want to start another debate.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > Some, or many, here disapprove of anonymous postings. I did an
> > experiment. Created a free email account several weeks ago.
> (snip)
> > My conclusion? I hate spam, and spammers' 'bots. I'll stay anonymous.
It's
> > simply easier than building ever more complex filters and firewalls.
I'll
> > cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
Guess I'm really lucky. Our little local ISP uses "Vircom" to firewall and
AV our mail. Sometimes 75-80 per day. Originally they would send a report
daily or weekly(my selection of frequency), but even that got to be a PITA,
so deselected the report. Once in a great while they will stop an email from
someone that I wanted, but I think I finally got all of them sorted out & on
the "whitelist". Generally I only se 1 or 2 spam per week(or less), or I
might see 1 or 2 of a new attempt until Vircom gets it trapped.
--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:05:42 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:56:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The concentric e-mail address that I used to use when posting is up to
> >>about 125 to 200 spams per day that the concentric filter catches and
tags
> >>as [junkmail].
> >
> >
> > One option is to sign up with a service that is generous with
> > aliases and periodically change the alias you use for Usenet,
> > say Mark101 then Mark102, etc. That lets people get to you
> > that you want to let get to you but kills off most of the spam
> > as well. Then use another alias altogether for vendors.
>
> That's good advice. Essentially the concentric account has become the
> one for vendors and other requestors with whom I may feel uncomfortable
> regarding their full intentions for my address. I have an account on the
> satellite ISP that is only provided to those whom I trust.
>
OK, I'm confused. Just what do y'all mean when you refer to a "concentric"
e-mail account?
--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I'll cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
How?
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
LRod wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'll cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
>
> How?
Person to person contact or email; not by newsgroup. I'm with him. My nomme de
plume is one of the worst kept secrets but it keeps the spam at bay. That's the
reason I use it. It also keeps the Board of Nursing off my ass if I write
something politically (gasp) incorrect.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:05:42 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:56:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> The concentric e-mail address that I used to use when posting is up to
>>about 125 to 200 spams per day that the concentric filter catches and tags
>>as [junkmail].
>
>
> One option is to sign up with a service that is generous with
> aliases and periodically change the alias you use for Usenet,
> say Mark101 then Mark102, etc. That lets people get to you
> that you want to let get to you but kills off most of the spam
> as well. Then use another alias altogether for vendors.
That's good advice. Essentially the concentric account has become the
one for vendors and other requestors with whom I may feel uncomfortable
regarding their full intentions for my address. I have an account on the
satellite ISP that is only provided to those whom I trust.
"Bob Haar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BDCA529C.159B2B%[email protected]...
If I told you my name was Leon Redbone or Leon Russel would that make my
comments or advice more credible to you?
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
>
>> It's impossible to build a reputation when you're
>> undifferentiated.
>
> May be difficultt, but not "impossible" ... how many Matthews, Marks,
> Lukes, or Johns do you know? Now tell me that some aren't
> "differentialted".
>
> "What's in a name? The poet is Wilde, but his poetry's tame."
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 11/06/04
>
>
One point to remember here is that there are several levels of anonymity and
identification.
One can simply not have any return address or name, or choose the same
anonymous address that lots of others choose, i.e. noone@noname. Many kill
files will knock off the ones without an address, so they really don't
matter in this. The common "anonymous" addresses get used by trolls and
spammers eventually. They end up in the killfile too. Sometimes
responding to a question from one of these is like talking to someone behind
a curtain. It just isn't enjoying without at least some level of identity.
Adding a bit more identity makes things a little easier. Nicknames and
taglines help others keep track of who asks what questions, and allows for a
little personality to be conveyed over time without necessarily conveying
externally identifying information. If we consider that membership in a
group is often a long term thing, then this is often good. It isn't unusual
to develop certain relationships between identifiable users.
There is the issue of people who regularly change their names or addresses
in order to avoid being identified. Unfortunately, those folks typically
trolls who realize that without constantly changing identity, they will be
picked out as impertinent.
Giving the actual names and addresses goes a bit further, and probably
represents more than is required. I suppose it could get in the way in some
respects. "John" might convey the actual name of a user, but "The workshop
dude" or "The Evening Woodcutter" projects an image of more identification
without actually giving an externally identifiable name.
Michael
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 02:07:51 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>But then again...
>trimming has always been a considerate behavior as well. A concept that is
>lost on a lot of bottom posters these days.
If people would learn to trim the fluff, top posting wouldn't even be
an issue.
- -
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:55:51 +0000, LRod
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>No, he's just another anonymous coward claiming spam as his excuse.
>Bullshit. My email address is easily discerned on usenet and is on
>every single one of the 400+ pages on my website.
Well good for you. You play with loaded pistols too? Pretty strong
words for a guy who is simply protecting himself from all the spammers
who mine these newsgroups for email addresses.
I could give a hoot if he wants to keep his email address to himself.
If he's got something to say that's relevant to the wreck then this is
the place to say it - I don't need his email, home address, or
telephone number to share ideas with the guy.
TWS - a guy who is also cowardly keeping (some of) the spammers away.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:29:31 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:42:43 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>LRod wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
>
>>
>> No, he's just another anonymous coward claiming spam as his excuse.
>> Bullshit. My email address is easily discerned on usenet and is on
>> every single one of the 400+ pages on my website. Although I get
>> perhaps a dozen or even two spams per day, I don't consider that an
>> onerous workload to manage. The <DEL> key is very effective with my
>> email client.
>
>I have 2 e-mail addresses and one is use specifically for certain tasks. It
>gets little to absolute no spam, 1 or 2 a week. The name I use here gets
>probably 75 hits a day minimum. I use mail washer to cull out the BS.
>
>
The concentric e-mail address that I used to use when posting is up to
about 125 to 200 spams per day that the concentric filter catches and tags
as [junkmail]. There are about 20 spams per day that my own filters catch
and about 5 to 10 slip through both of those. Unfortunately, for the
concentric filter to catch that many, it is too aggressive and sometimes
gets false positives (Grizzly, Northern Tool, Jamestown, and Penn State get
caught regularly, as did several order confirmations from Woodworker's
Supply), so I have to do a quick scan through the junkmail bin to verify
that nobody's in there before deleting the lot.
>
>
>My point is that he claims he will email any human. So how does that
>happen? How do I get ahold of him? He has no email address (that's
>discernible. I can only assume he wants me to post mine and then he'll
>email me. He wants me to do what he's too frightened to do. He wants
>me to expose myself without exposing himself. I say again, bullshit.
Then don't expose yourself. CYA (Cover your ass) What in the heck is
wrong with just keeping it on the newsgroup? I can see the problem
with posting under several names, but who cares if you call a guy
"Woodchuck" or "Bob Smith" (for example) Even if the name looks real,
you still don't know that that's the guy's name, and I wonder why it
would matter. If someone needs you to e-mail them, they can post
their address in response to a query on the group- it's not necessary
to put it in every post.
>>TWS - a guy who is also cowardly keeping (some of) the spammers away.
>
>'Some of' is right.
I don't get any, unless you count "Deltagrams"- and I don't,
especially since they're sending me a free set of turning tools as a
result! (Had to buy a Midi Lathe, but I was going to do that anyhow.)
As an on-topic FYI- Delta is running the promotion for a free set of
turning tools ($99) or a bed extension (approx $50) with purchase of a
Midi Lathe if you get it before 12/31/04. Didn't see it anywhere but
the Delta website, so I figured it was worth a mention.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"Australopithecus scobis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some, or many, here disapprove of anonymous postings. I did an
> experiment.
I don't disapprove at all.
I just factor it in if the thread takes a "interesting" turn.
> My conclusion? I hate spam, and spammers' 'bots. I'll stay anonymous. It's
> simply easier than building ever more complex filters and firewalls. I'll
> cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
I'm not sure I agree with the "anonymous" part. I think you're saying "I'll
keep my email address private." To me, that's not anonymity.
Some folks choose to have unlisted telephone numbers. That's fine by me.
I do think posting with you're real name or a "thinly veiled" nom de'
newsgroups is valuable.
On 26 Nov 2004 16:07:52 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:57:15 -0500, George <george@least> wrote:
>> Why? It's the message, not the messenger, that matters.
>
>Perhaps, but the problem with being anonymous, is that it blurs you in
>with all the _other_ anonymous people. The credibility hit is real.
>
>And please don't top-post. It makes quoting in context difficult.
I'm not too hard to find, if you really want to talk to me, and I
really don't give a damn if my personality stands out here on the
wreck. I tried using an unmunged address and ruined a perfectly good
email address, so I won't do that again.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:29:31 GMT, "Leon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> The concentric e-mail address that I used to use when posting is up to
> about 125 to 200 spams per day that the concentric filter catches and tags
> as [junkmail]. There are about 20 spams per day that my own filters catch
> and about 5 to 10 slip through both of those. Unfortunately, for the
> concentric filter to catch that many, it is too aggressive and sometimes
> gets false positives (Grizzly, Northern Tool, Jamestown, and Penn State
> get
> caught regularly, as did several order confirmations from Woodworker's
> Supply), so I have to do a quick scan through the junkmail bin to verify
> that nobody's in there before deleting the lot.
Actually I see all the spam out there but like you choose to make sure it is
Spam before down loading or deleating. I trust Mailwasher for about 98% of
the decision making.
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:30:39 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "Dave Hinz" wrote in message
> >
> >> It's impossible to build a reputation when you're
> >> undifferentiated.
> >
> > May be difficultt, but not "impossible" ... how many Matthews, Marks,
> > Lukes, or Johns do you know? Now tell me that some aren't
"differentialted".
>
> If there's someone posting as "John", and there's another someone posting
> as "John", it is to be expected that people may not notice it's two
> different people called "John". If some is posting as "[email protected]",
> it's likely that people have encountered _other_ people posting as "me@
> nospam.com", and it's hard to know (or care) if it's the same one, or
> not.
Not proof of the statement that it is "impossible".
> > "What's in a name? The poet is Wilde, but his poetry's tame."
>
> When the name, or absence of a name, gets in the way of communication,
> that kind of defeats the purpose of participating in a medium which has
> the primary purpose of communicating.
I would say that anyone who lets the absence of a name" "get in the way" is
arguably not open to communication, particularly in a medium where there is
no absolute means of, or even reason for, "name" verification.
Besides, just who the hell is "Dave Hinz", and why should I listen to him?
IME, and in the final analysis, CONTENT, and the quality, or lack, thereof,
is all that counts.
.... this particular argument notwithstanding. ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/04
On 29 Nov 2004 16:08:58 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, they're certainly more _distinguishable_. [email protected] looks like
>[email protected] looks like [email protected] and so on. And I would argue
>that if one anonymous poster can't readily be distinguised from others,
>that it makes that person harder to identify (recognize, if you will).
>If you can't recognize someone, it's just "some guy said" quality of
>advice, rather than "Dave Balderstone said...".
hey Dave, this is usenet. just assume that every post is anonymous and
that nobody here is who they say they are. it's the nature of the
medium that identity is pretty much irrelevant and content is
everything. if a post is garbage, pass on it. if it's useful, use it.
insisting that everybody identify themselves to you is arrogant
egotistical pissing in the wind.
DaveHinz
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:58:22 -0500, "Norman D. Crow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>
>"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:05:42 -0500, GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:56:51 -0700, Mark & Juanita
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
... snip
>>
>
>OK, I'm confused. Just what do y'all mean when you refer to a "concentric"
>e-mail account?
Sorry, poor grammar on my part. Should have capitalized as Concentric as
in "Concentric.net". They are now part of XO.com, but the Concentric.net
domain name is still active. i.e., they are an ISP and were my original
ISP for dial-up. When I got Direcway, I went with Direcway as my primary
ISP, but kept Concentric as a backup and because I do have a number of
contacts who know my Concentric e-mail address.
On 26 Nov 2004 16:12:41 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>No, but it decreases the value of the advice from "this person I have
>dealt with for a while and who seems to be logical", to "some guy
>calling himself "[email protected]". The thing with the anon
>identities, is that they've all been used, and they all blur together
>after a while. It's impossible to build a reputation when you're
>undifferentiated.
>
The value of my advice has little to do with who I am. I think you
are confusing anonymity with uniqueness. My newsgroup identity is
(almost) anonymous but it is unique. If I continue to use this same
nom de web (which is likely since it won't get corrupted by a billion
spammers forcing me to change it) then my reputation (good or bad)
will be built on my comments and contributions to this newsgroup.
That's ok by me.
I've participated in this newsgroup for just a little while and there
are already a number of posters that I specifically look for because I
know that their advice is thoughtful, helpful to me, and respectful to
others - I'm not bothered by the fact I don't know who some of them
are. It is *what* they say and how they say it I care about. I might
point out that there are also some posters who I purposefully avoid
because they are either wrong, disrespectful, or otherwise valueless
in content - and I don't care if I know their name or not. In fact, I
would prefer that I didn't know their name.
If you have this need to have a real person's name to be able to
appreciate the value of their contribution then I'm not sure what it
is you value.
TWS
"LRod" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:42:43 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>LRod wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:56:32 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll cheerfully give my real email address to humans.
>
> No, he's just another anonymous coward claiming spam as his excuse.
> Bullshit. My email address is easily discerned on usenet and is on
> every single one of the 400+ pages on my website. Although I get
> perhaps a dozen or even two spams per day, I don't consider that an
> onerous workload to manage. The <DEL> key is very effective with my
> email client.
I have 2 e-mail addresses and one is use specifically for certain tasks. It
gets little to absolute no spam, 1 or 2 a week. The name I use here gets
probably 75 hits a day minimum. I use mail washer to cull out the BS.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:19:18 +0000, LRod
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Please. You sound like a person who thinks that having an unlisted
>phone number prevents telephone solicitation. Wake up and join the
>20th Century.
I'd rather join the 21st Century, thank you. And I don't have any
desire to make it easy for the spammers.
I call this smart, not cowardly but YMMV.
TWS