2002-04-28
Is the URL correct? I get a "page cannot be displayed" error everytime I
bring it up.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nat Hager III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, 2002-04-28 12:00
Subject: [USMA:19740] RE: Off topic but about WSJ attitudes
> I must say one good thing about WSJ and spam, in that their tech columnist
> Walter Mossberg suggested a very good spamfilter that has made my Net
life.
> Don't mean to diverge, but since spam is a problem to everyone these days
I
> thought the suggestion might be useful:
>
> The program is Spamkiller (www.spamkiller.com) which can be downloaded off
> their website. It may take a week or so to "fine-tune" to your
preferences,
> but the filters work like this:
>
> 1) Anyone in my Outlook addressbook is cleared, regardless of content.
> Similar for Outlook Express, Eudora, etc.
>
> 2) Anything coming from a specified domain is cleared, regardless of
> content. Here I put companies I do business with.
>
> 3) Anything coming from non-spamming top-level domains .gov, .mil, .edu,
> .org is cleared, regardless of content. That includes granting agencies,
> students, and the USMA list. This is a specific preference I set up.
>
> 4) The rest are screened for obvious phrasing ("viagra", "porn", "make
money
> fast", "accept credit cards", etc, with those containg such phrasing going
> into a separate killfile. The phrasing definitions are extensive, with
> updates available on their website.
>
> Once a day I check subject lines and senders in the killfile, and then
> delete en masse.
>
> Alternatively since the program only downloads spam, while leaving
legimate
> mail on the server, I just let it run 24/7 on a high-speed daytime
> connection while downloading legitimate mail at home or on my laptop. The
> chance that something legitimate gets caught is extremely remote, and can
> wait until I inspect the killfile.
>
> The program isn't perfect but it helps a lot. I note Spamkiller has
> recently been acquired by McAfee, so maybe spamfiltering will soon be
> intergrated with the standard Anti-Virus suites.
>
> Let's hope!
>
> Nat
>
> >
> >
> > (From: Nat Hager, > Subject: [USMA:19622] RE: European Union
regulations)
> >
> > Off topic, but did all of you also read in the WSJ article that
> > it supports
> > the use of spam and cookies that spy out what you are doing on
> > the Internet?
> > WSJ opposes proposed EU regulations against spam.
> > As far as I am concerned, decent companies do not spam, do not send junk
> > faxes and do not engage in outbound telemarketing. The position the WSJ
> > takes in this regard is deplorable, as it is on many other issues,
metric
> > included. The success of Le Pen in France caused WSJ Europe to
> > print a very
> > vicious commentary against the EU.
> > And the WSJ's comment on road safety, in this case about 'bull bars'
and
> > accidents with pedestrians is disgusting. It looks as if more
> > deaths on the
> > roads are not a big deal to them.
> >
> > Han
> > Historian of Dutch Metrication, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: U.S. Metric Association
> > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:47 PM
> > Subject: [USMA:19664] Re: About the mailing list
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2002-04-25 22:07:57 Eastern Daylight Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is the bit that says '[USMA:19624]' essential? It prevents me doing a
> > meaningful 'sort by subject'.
> >
> >
> > That, plus similar things on other lists, helps us detect and delete the
> > spam more easily.
> >
> > cm
> >
> >
> >
>
