To people who complain about my replying to spam.

[steve]

Based on what? My experience, and I have TONS of it, is that it DOES
help, tremendously, to fight usenet spam.


That's your opinion and I find it to be untrue in my experience.
Legally, NO ISP is open to legal action for enforcing their TOS. At
least any ISP that resides in a civilized country.

At this point in fact, the main offender as far as not enforcing their
TOS is Google.

My experience is based on years of reporting each and every incidence
of both usenet and email unwanted messages. About one in ten was
answered by the abuse people but usually an auto response. I never saw
any reduction in the spam I was reporting. I gave up worrying or
reporting email spam about five years ago when I found a simple
solution. As for usenet spam I don't follow many groups that suffer
too much spam. I also use Agent so spam threads are a single key
ignore.

As for legal action, it's not TOS related. I am currently involved
trying to stop a marketer using virus techniques. His ISP refuses to
do anything about him because they have a legal contract with him. The
ISP is in the USA. Is that a civilised country?

 

[steve]

I post to usenet with a fake email address and that's one of the main
tactics everybody should use to avoid having their email address get
harvested.

That's pointless if the address has been in use for many, many years.
I started on usenet about 15 years ago and have use the same address
for 12 years before spam was a problem.

As I said before it's easy to use a real address and not get much spam
at all.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Why should they not? I've already done the legwork for them.

You've caused people to file invalid complaints in the past.

That's why killfiles were invented.

The fact that people can killfile you is no justification for
posting extra noise to a group.

If somebody is too freaking lazy to spend a few seconds creating
that filter, then they have no excuse to whine.

Better for them to complain that you should stop the noise. If you are
too freaking lazy to filter the complaints, don't whine about them.

 

[Andy Mabbett]

from John "sorry Andy, but it's all true" Corliss. and
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett.

Evidence of Corliss' lying hypocrisy from his own, broken, sig.

 

[Aaron]

Thanks, but people should note that by far, I'm not the only person
fighting spam in this group. Many others routinely send complaints to
ISPs and hosts as well, but most don't post replies which list the
addresses for sending the complaints to.

And none start off topic threads to discuss what they do, why they do it
etc.


This used to be a more common

practice in this group (my tactic, that is),

I hope it's will not become a common tactic for people to start off topic
threads to to justify to the world, what they do, and why it is necessary
to to keep this newsgroup safe and secure.

Come to think of it, there's only one person I know who does that and one
of them is more than enough or the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Respect Coriliss? He is worse than the spammers!

There is nothing more annoying than having someone in a newsgroup
dictating what you have do to...

Yes, there is something more annoying. Posters who top post and are
too lazy/inconsiderate to delete parts of a previous post that they
are not responding to.

He is not only fighting spam FYI, but whatever HE doesn't agree with!

Spammers come and go.. but he is here all the time...

Like you.

 

[Mike Echo]

It's quite simple. I have six real email addresses which are all
redirected to the one I'm using here which is also a real address.
They are sorted out by Agent watch filters into different folders. The
address I'm using here as been in use for over twelve years and so is
probably on every spam list. Anything sent directly to the address
rather than via a redirection is not downloaded and the server deletes
it.

I'm not sure I see any benefit in this.

If I see your email is steve@tropheus... as above and email you, then
you will not get it as it is direct. Why is what you are doing any
better than using spammotel or even munging your address for newsgroups?

R.

 

[KeithS]

Evidence of Corliss' lying hypocrisy from his own, broken, sig.

Yet again Mabbett, it's not broken. Yet again put up or shut up.

 

[steve]

I'm not sure I see any benefit in this.

If I see your email is steve@tropheus... as above and email you, then
you will not get it as it is direct. Why is what you are doing any
better than using spammotel or even munging your address for newsgroups?

It's because all the email I get is redirected to various @tropheus...
so they can be sorted on headers when they arrives. steve@tropheus...
has been used for over 12 years so it is well spread among spammers.
No point in munging after 12 years.

 

[In_Parentheses]

Respect Coriliss? He is worse than the spammers!

There is nothing more annoying than having someone in a newsgroup
dictating what you have do to...

He is not only fighting spam FYI, but whatever HE doesn't agree with!

Spammers come and go.. but he is here all the time...

Respect Coriliss? He is worse than the spammers!

No, he isn't; but I'm getting close to the point were I would consider
you to be worse than spammers. Your posts hardly serve any purpose other
than to create "noise".

There is nothing more annoying than having someone in a newsgroup
dictating what you have do to...

And tell me what you are doing? IMNSHO you are doing exactly the same as
what you feel JC is doing, and you start to sound quite like Andy, if I
may say so!

He is not only fighting spam FYI, but whatever HE doesn't agree with!

Oh? Did you get a notification from your ISP then that he filed
complaints about your posts? I bet you didn't, so what in heaven's name
are you talking about?

Spammers come and go.. but he is here all the time...

Again wrong, when spammers find a place they can post their spam in to
their heart's desire... they will stay!

 

[John Corliss]

That's pointless if the address has been in use for many, many years.

Not at all. It at least helps. However, when I started using a fake
email address it was right after I did the following:

1. Took down all of my web pages which were hosted by my ISP, since
their addresses all contained my user ID. I asked the ISP if they'd
consider using another method to address web pages (pointing out to them
that they were basically giving away a person's email address on the
internet by doing it this way) but they refused to change. So...

2. After closing all my websites, I had them change my user ID to a
randomized sequence of alphanumeric characters.

3. I created a free Yahoo account so I could have and address to give to
businesses and idiots who like sending me e-cards.

4. I then started posting to usenet with a fake email address.

The result is that my email spam went from over 300 a day to none.
Immediately. And although one of my relatives who should know better
sent me an ecard, I only get five or six spams every month. They're
filtered out completely by my ISP's use of SpamAssassin.

I started on usenet about 15 years ago and have use the same address
for 12 years before spam was a problem.

As I said before it's easy to use a real address and not get much spam
at all.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[John Corliss]

And none start off topic threads to discuss what they do, why they do it
etc.


I hope it's will not become a common tactic for people to start off topic
threads to to justify to the world, what they do, and why it is necessary
to to keep this newsgroup safe and secure.

Oh, I see. You want it to be flooded with spam then. You're in a
minority in that case.

Come to think of it, there's only one person I know who does that and one
of them is more than enough or the cure is worse than the disease.

I will continue to do so when the need arises. If you can't understand
that my intent is to cut down on the amount of whining from newbies who
don't understand how to filter messages properly, then too bad.

 

[John Corliss]

Yet again Mabbett, it's not broken. Yet again put up or shut up.

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pigsonthewing

or better yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Pigsonthewing

Guess who that is.

Although I'm sure it's happened, I've never seen anybody else who's a
big enough jerk to get banned from contributing to Wikipedia.

 

[John Corliss]

You've caused people to file invalid complaints in the past.

Care to provide any examples?

The fact that people can killfile you is no justification for
posting extra noise to a group.

There was a long and tedious discussion of which subject line inclusion
to use for replies like my spam copping. The group held a vote on it IIRC.

Better for them to complain that you should stop the noise.

As opposed to creating the filter. No, I totally disagree.

If you are
too freaking lazy to filter the complaints, don't whine about them.

Oh, now that's real logical.

Not. Look, as I've said, if you

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Care to provide any examples?

I can't recall the name of the person whose posts you erroneously
labeled as spam, and googling you for spam notices would produce too
many results to wade through. You don't remember having to
apologize?

There was a long and tedious discussion of which subject line
inclusion to use for replies like my spam copping. The group held
a vote on it IIRC.
Yes.


As opposed to creating the filter. No, I totally disagree.

The complaints won't be seen by anyone who's created the filter
(unless people start unmarked threads to discuss it), so the same
"they shouldn't bother anyone" argument you apply to your anti-spam
posts applies. But you'll see them, and perhaps it will convince you
to stop.

Oh, now that's real logical.

Note the winky thing at the end.

Not. Look, as I've said, if you

I didn't snip here. Looks like you hit 'send' too soon.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

It's because all the email I get is redirected to various
@tropheus... so they can be sorted on headers when they arrives.
steve@tropheus... has been used for over 12 years so it is well
spread among spammers. No point in munging after 12 years.

But tacking a .invalid on the end would at least let people know that
it's useless to e-mail you there.

 

[John Corliss]

Care to provide any examples?


There was a long and tedious discussion of which subject line inclusion
to use for replies like my spam copping. The group held a vote on it IIRC.


As opposed to creating the filter. No, I totally disagree.


Oh, now that's real logical.

Not. Look, as I've said, if you

Guess I ran out of steam. Tired of arguing anyway. I'm going to stop
posting to this thread and will continue to fight spam

End of discussion.

 

[John Corliss]

I can't recall the name of the person whose posts you erroneously
labeled as spam, and googling you for spam notices would produce too
many results to wade through. You don't remember having to
apologize?

Yes, you're right. However, as I've already said, such a mistake doesn't
invalidate my other efforts. Not even close.

The complaints won't be seen by anyone who's created the filter

Good point. However, the complainers need to understand that they're
pissing in the wind and how to filter out my replies to spam.

(unless people start unmarked threads to discuss it), so the same
"they shouldn't bother anyone" argument you apply to your anti-spam
posts applies. But you'll see them, and perhaps it will convince you
to stop.

Ain't gonna happen.

Note the winky thing at the end.
Noted.


I didn't snip here. Looks like you hit 'send' too soon.

As another post said, tired of arguing and I'm ending it here. I prefer
to discuss freeware.

I already said EOD in that other post, but felt I needed to reply to
this last post of yours. Now though, it truly is the end of what I'll
add to this thread.

 

[Caesar Romano]

I can't recall the name of the person whose posts you erroneously
labeled as spam, and googling you for spam notices would produce too
many results to wade through. You don't remember having to
apologize?

Now that you mention it, I recall that there were three or four such
false accusations in the past couple of years.

 

[Craig]

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pigsonthewing

or better yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Pigsonthewing


Guess who that is.

Although I'm sure it's happened, I've never seen anybody else who's a
big enough jerk to get banned from contributing to Wikipedia.

Wow;

Our very own Andy has received a year-long ban from Wikipedia for, among
other things, "harrasment and a disruptive and rude interacting style."

At least he's consistent.

-Craig