SPAM

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Trans, Sep 29, 2008.

  1. Trans

    Trans Guest

    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.
     
    Trans, Sep 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Trans

    Alex Fenton Guest

    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
     
    Alex Fenton, Sep 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <>:
    > 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
     
    Robert Klemme, Sep 29, 2008
    #3
  4. 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.
     
    Michael W. Ryder, Sep 29, 2008
    #4
  5. Trans

    Robert Dober Guest

    On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme
    <> wrote:
    > 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <>:
    >> 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 Dober, Sep 29, 2008
    #5
  6. On 29.09.2008 22:13, Robert Dober wrote:
    > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme
    > <> wrote:
    >> 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <>:
    >>> 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
     
    Robert Klemme, Sep 29, 2008
    #6
  7. On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:04 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.


    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.denhaven2.com/
     
    Rick DeNatale, Sep 30, 2008
    #7
  8. Trans

    Ryan Neufeld Guest

    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
     
    Ryan Neufeld, Sep 30, 2008
    #8
  9. Trans

    Randy Kramer Guest

    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.
     
    Randy Kramer, Sep 30, 2008
    #9
  10. Trans

    Trans Guest

    On Sep 29, 4:13=A0pm, "Robert Dober" <> wrote:
    > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme<=
    > wrote:
    > > 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <>:
    > >> 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.
     
    Trans, Sep 30, 2008
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rene Pijlman
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    769
    Fredrik Lundh
    Dec 10, 2003
  2. Sergio Correia
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    322
    Ben Finney
    Sep 18, 2007
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    564
  4. zax75
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,135
  5. David Binnie
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    466
    Rich Webb
    May 22, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page