On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 04:05:17 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:28:03PM -0500, Scott C. Linnenbringer wrote:
The USENET is a different story, and I'm willing to bet that he's not
aware of munging policies of mailing lists vs. the USENET.
But they're the
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:07:57 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was one of the last straws that made me to start serving myself. I
signed up for Yahoo and they sold me up the river. Now I'm not so
concerned about it because I have better methods and report.
We'll just have to
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 17:47:02 -0500, Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By using an invalid email address in your headers with a valid
domain, the site's mx is picking up the weight of spam, even though
you are not.
I think
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:33:58 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, it generates less spam than signing up for Yahoo, even when
used over years.
How can you be so sure?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 09:10:03 -0700, Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to have to do this, but I own an apology to Paul Johnson.
(Having received a mail from a list member with an example of a false
CR. Talk about FAST.)
For all that you do in trying to fight the spam problem, I
It seems that Mr. Connor never paid attention to Sesame St. when the Count
was on.
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:54:03 -0700
Alan Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
= 1. First level of quoting.
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 6 08:41:46 2003
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:05:10 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
USENET was designed as a replacement to listservs. Given the origin,
lost functionality, and it's about as effective as C-R for reducing
spam, munging is considered harmful.
No functionality is lost, I get protection
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:33:06 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't get protection from spam. If humans can decode it, so can
the spammers. If humans can't decode it, you're voiding functionality
needlessly.
That's just it, while a human *can* decode it a harvester cannot.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 04:10:05 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did an experiment by posting a temporary account in the From header
in a bunch of different fairly high-traffic, high-spam groups as well
as the ones I regular. Six months later when I remembered I had
started that
Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Munging has always traditionally been okay in news.
Not to many people, including myself.
--
Alan Shutko [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I am the rocks.
Show up at the funeral services in a clown suit.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 21:05:46 -0700
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sorry, I think I missed it. Why aren't you reporting?
What makes you think I'm not? I'm pointing out that the assertion that
addresses posted to newsgroups are not harvested is false. I use an address
ONLY on the
At 2003-08-06T22:10:13Z, Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a valid email address.
Neither is [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is how it appears on my
system. Or [EMAIL PROTECTED] for everyone else.
--
Kirk Strauser
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Scott C. Linnenbringer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By using an invalid email address in your headers with a valid
domain, the site's mx is picking up the weight of spam, even though
you are not.
I think eskimo.com's mail system is actually slightly broken, and
that Alan Connor isn't posting
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:51:33 +0100, Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote:
I think eskimo.com is rewriting that localhost into eskimo.com. So
it isn't actually getting any extra load from Alan Connor... it's
just slightly damaging
14 matches
Mail list logo
