Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Vladimir Panteleev Wrote: By the way, you can set up Gmail to retrieve mail from your other inbox (assuming you don't use some webmail-only service like Yahoo) and pass it through its spam filter. -- Best regards, Vladimir mailto:thecybersha...@gmail.com I'd be interested to know if you got my email. Steve
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:55:34 +0300, Steve Teale steve.te...@britseyeview.com wrote: I'd be interested to know if you got my email. I got it, because Gmail's hyper-sophisticated AI recognized it was a joke and not genuine spam :D Seriously though, a spam filter that makes decisions solely on the e-mail's content can only get so good. Matching e-mails against huge databases of previous records and user decisions put Gmail's filter above the average corporate one. So, you should try sending that e-mail to a few hundred thousand addresses and see if it'll work then :) -- Best regards, Vladimir mailto:thecybersha...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
On Sat, 30 May 2009 00:26:02 +0300, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote in message news:op.uun3kgep1hx...@biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no... Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Manfred Nowak svv1...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:xns9c197a654df6dsvv1999hotmail...@65.204.18.192... At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email address for myself on a newsgroup posting. Hey bots! Please spam me!. I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good an idea. I've tried a number of filters over the years, even popular and highly-respected ones, but never found one that didn't give me both false-positives and false-negatives. The way I do things now, despite having no filters, I also have no spam at all and (naturally) no valid messages accidentally being rejected. So I see the filters as little more than clumbsy bandage-appoach. Offline (stand-alone) filters can't stand up to filters maintained by a multi-billion-dollar company, powered by instant user feedback and analysis from millions of accounts (I'm talking about the mark as (not) spam buttons). Did you know that Gmail actually scans image attachments with OCR? (The Viagra spammers started sending e-mails with some markov-chain-generated body and the actual advertisement on a generated picture). A few years ago I was also paranoid about leaving my e-mail address in plain text on the web, until I noticed that D's Bugzilla doesn't attempt to hide them (I even filed a ticket about this, which got closed a year later or so). Today I get over 1000 spam e-mails per month, out of which about one or two gets past the filter. By the way, you can set up Gmail to retrieve mail from your other inbox (assuming you don't use some webmail-only service like Yahoo) and pass it through its spam filter. -- Best regards, Vladimir mailto:thecybersha...@gmail.com
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Simen Kjaeraas Wrote: I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good an idea. Yeah, spam fighting is the best application for computers.
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com wrote in message news:op.uun3kgep1hx...@biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no... Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: Manfred Nowak svv1...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:xns9c197a654df6dsvv1999hotmail...@65.204.18.192... At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email address for myself on a newsgroup posting. Hey bots! Please spam me!. I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good an idea. I've tried a number of filters over the years, even popular and highly-respected ones, but never found one that didn't give me both false-positives and false-negatives. The way I do things now, despite having no filters, I also have no spam at all and (naturally) no valid messages accidentally being rejected. So I see the filters as little more than clumbsy bandage-appoach.
[OT] Convention of Communication
At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break convention. -manfred
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Manfred Nowak Wrote: At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. What is usenet?
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:15:48 +0400, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote: Manfred Nowak Wrote: At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. What is usenet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Manfred Nowak wrote: At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break convention. -manfred No. There's no reason to require or even incentivize non-anonymity.
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:02:04 +0400, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote: Denis Koroskin Wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:15:48 +0400, Kagamin s...@here.lot wrote: Manfred Nowak Wrote: At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. What is usenet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet yet another board system... FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet category: Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details): On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ...
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Manfred Nowak wrote: At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break convention. -manfred There are many reasons for encouraging, or even enforcing, non-anonymity on a forum. Some of them are good. Ancient Convention is -- no offense -- not one of them. :) This NG is not plagued by spam, trolls or hit'n'runs, so I see no reason to require non-anonymity. But who knows, maybe acts of terrorism are being planned inbetween lines of D code in this very forum? (Oh no, did I just bring us to the Attention of the Authorities?) -Lars
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Denis Koroskin wrote: FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet category: Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details): On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ... Just because NNTP is used for Usenet doesn't mean every NNTP server is a Usenet server. Similarly, not every TCP/IP network is the Internet and not every car is the one I drove to the supermarket last week :P.
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Frits van Bommel fvbom...@remwovexcapss.nl wrote in message news:gvlsjc$188...@digitalmars.com... Denis Koroskin wrote: FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet category: Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details): On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ... Just because NNTP is used for Usenet doesn't mean every NNTP server is a Usenet server. Similarly, not every TCP/IP network is the Internet and not every car is the one I drove to the supermarket last week :P. WiFi available here! [pet peeve]Not every WiFi network is conected to the internet[/pet peeve]
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Nick Sabalausky wrote: Frits van Bommel fvbom...@remwovexcapss.nl wrote in message news:gvlsjc$188...@digitalmars.com... Denis Koroskin wrote: FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet category: Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details): On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ... Just because NNTP is used for Usenet doesn't mean every NNTP server is a Usenet server. Similarly, not every TCP/IP network is the Internet and not every car is the one I drove to the supermarket last week :P. WiFi available here! [pet peeve]Not every WiFi network is conected to the internet[/pet peeve] One day I would like to walk into a coffee shop my laptop, connect to Wi-Fi and be able to only explore the cafe's intranet.
Re: [OT] Convention of Communication
Manfred Nowak svv1...@hotmail.com wrote in message news:xns9c197a654df6dsvv1999hotmail...@65.204.18.192... At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author. Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email address for myself on a newsgroup posting. Hey bots! Please spam me!. I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break convention. -manfred
