A proposition

In article <BoeOi.8638$vS1.5814@trndny08>,

deja.blues said:

Some newsservers do not allow munged email addys anyway .

rec.guns is a moderated group and does not alowl _obviously_ munged
email addresses, but mine passes. It's subtle and the key is in the sig.
--
Peace, Om

Remove both _ (underscores) to validate gmail e-mails.

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein

In article <[email hidden]>,

jmcquown said:

Omelet said:

In article said:

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:58:37 -0400, "Nancy Young" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Precisely. I was Block Sender-ing people every day, by the next
> day they were someone else. Making rules deleting anything
> mentioning sneakers/etc, helped a bit.

Oh, for god's sake Nancy. In the thread like the Michael Vick one,
you should have just blocked the subject. For other spam, you can
pick key words to block.

Key word subject blocking has worked VERY well for me!

Much better than blocking senders. :-)

That's all well and good. I've got a rule to block any posts that refer to
Nike in the subject. (Who on earth would by sneakers from a spammer,
anyway?) But you can't always know what key words these sneaky [censored]
will put in their subject lines. And the majority of this SPAM comes from
people with @gmail.com as their email address. It gets old trying to block
every possible combination of keywords these losers might dream up.

Jill

It used to be hotmail... and still is in a lot of e-mail spams I get.
--
Peace, Om

Remove both _ (underscores) to validate gmail e-mails.

"Human nature seems to be to control other people until they put their foot down." -- Steve Rothstein

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nancy Young said:

I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant
without all that spam and other assorted [censored]. Unfortunately,
I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss,
so I deleted the rule.

I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because
she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address.

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.

OK, I'll do it. (Will mean I get less spam too.)

Miche

--
In the monastery office --
Before enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper
After enlightenment: fetch mail, shuffle paper

The message <[email hidden]>
from Omelet <omp_omelet@g_mail.com> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter A <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She certainly did not do me a service. I am not dumb enough to believe
that all posters from a particular server or domain are incapable of
contributing valuable comments to this group. I have the wits and
willingness to killfile individual people.

I agree. Or, individual threads which don't interest me. Or, trigger-words.

Quoted message said:

That can be awfully time consuming....

On my newsreader it takes a nano-second.

Quoted message said:

My killfile list for this group is second only to tx.guns due to
crossposting trolls.

Then use a newsreader which lets you set up a filter on crossposted
messages and specify how many crossposts qualifies each message for the
killfile. I have mine set to allow 2 crossposts, because those are often
genuine messages. Anything more than 2, they go straight in the KF
without even appearing on my screen.

Janet

"Miche" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because
she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address.

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.

OK, I'll do it. (Will mean I get less spam too.)

Oh, man, thank you Miche, another person I didn't know I was
missing.

nancy

[email hidden] (Little Malice) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

[email hidden] (Little Malice) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet, "Nancy Young" <[email hidden]>
said:
> "Little Malice" <[email hidden]> wrote
>
> > So does that mean you guys are filtering me? I've
> > noticed I don't get the followups that I used to -- I
> > wonder if that's why...
>
> I noticed that I was, and not on purpose, obviously.
> That's why I un-blocked gmail. Hence this thread.
>
> I'm sorry I *forced* you to mung your address. (laugh)

No problem, I'm happy to do it. I'd hate to have you miss
me, Nancy. ;-) "geemail.com" seems to be working better. I
wouldn't even use gmail, but it's nice to let Google catch
the spam...

You really shouldn't use a valid domain.

Someone owns "http://www.geemail.com/"

They may own it, but they're not using it. That URL returns a
"Server not found" message. Test e-mails get "Host or domain
name not found. Name service error for name=geemail.com
type=A: Host found but no data record of requested type". So I
don't think I'm going to bother anyone. However, just in case,
I changed it one last time. I'm nice like that...

Glad you checked. Never know when someone could take that address.

Thanks for being nice. :-)

Little Malice said:

One time on Usenet said:

"Little Malice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet, "MJB" <[email hidden]> said:
> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@g_mail.com> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...

> > Steve, I did not mind changing my munging a bit because the odds

are,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > she is not the only one doing this.

> She isn't

I changed mine. I hope it helps...

It's working. First time I've seen your posts on this server.

Well heck, I had no idea! I wondered why it seemed like I was being
ignored more than usual. ;-)

Thanks for the report back...

I enjoy your posts, and slogging through Google to read them is a *real*
chore anymore. So, another "thank you"...

:-)

--
Best
Greg

Nancy Young said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

>> > Why don't you kill individuals rather than whole domains? It seems
>> > odd
>> > to expect others to change the way they post for your convenience.
>>
>> Please point out where I said I expect anyone to do anything?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Here ya go:
>
>>> Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
>>> This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

What's that you like to say to people? Reading comprehension?

Quoted message said:

Please explain what you mean - what did I not comprehend? You are asking

You got it!! I asked! Not expected! Asked. And my subject
line said Proposition. I proposed a solution, what I hoped for was a
resolution,
and thanks to others, the matter was settled.

Quoted message said:

others to mung certain email addresses so that others, including you,
will still see their posts.

There was no need for this drama. If you had stopped at your first
sentence I could have explained my problem.

I and others are fine with the whole thing.

Peter A. and Squirtz are just being all churlish because they simply can't
understand why anyone would do anything out of the kindness of their own
hearts in order to make things a little more pleasant and easier for
folks...I mean what kind of effort does it take to change a munge in an
address, what, like two seconds...???

IOW the concept of "the finesse of politesse" is apparently an alien concept
to them...

;-)

And many thanks again for initiating this thread, Nancy...I can see several
of my fave posters again without having to slog through the increasingly
ghastly Google Groups interface.

--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I and others are fine with the whole thing.

Quoted message said:

Peter A. and Squirtz are just being all churlish because they simply can't
understand why anyone would do anything out of the kindness of their own
hearts in order to make things a little more pleasant and easier for
folks...I mean what kind of effort does it take to change a munge in an
address, what, like two seconds...???

And that effort is much appreciated by me, not to mention the
whitelist solution James posted for me.

Quoted message said:

IOW the concept of "the finesse of politesse" is apparently an alien
concept
to them...

;-)

Heh. That's nothing new.

Quoted message said:

And many thanks again for initiating this thread, Nancy...I can see
several
of my fave posters again without having to slog through the increasingly
ghastly Google Groups interface.

Thanks a million, Greg. The stupid posts don't overshadow the
nice responses I got from the people my post actually affected.

And since I un-blocked gmail temporarily it's back to jewelry
sales, that moron who chases Steve around, etc.

nancy

In article <[email hidden]>,

Miche said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nancy Young said:

I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant
without all that spam and other assorted [censored]. Unfortunately,
I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss,
so I deleted the rule.

I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because
she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address.

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.

OK, I'll do it. (Will mean I get less spam too.)

Miche

When are you going to start? "-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Dinner at Yummy! 9-15-2007 Pictures included.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Miche said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Nancy Young said:

I killfiled the gmail domain, life is certainly more pleasant
without all that spam and other assorted [censored]. Unfortunately,
I see that I am missing too many people I don't want to miss,
so I deleted the rule.

I still have the rule for hotmail, but I see kili's posts because
she has munged the @hotmail.com part of her address.

Those of you who use gmail, maybe you could do the same?
This way anyone who kills gmail won't miss your posts?

Best of both worlds ... for me, at least.

OK, I'll do it. (Will mean I get less spam too.)

Miche

When are you going to start? "-)
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Dinner at Yummy! 9-15-2007 Pictures included.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You got it!! I asked! Not expected! Asked. And my subject
line said Proposition. I proposed a solution, what I hoped for was a
resolution,
and thanks to others, the matter was settled.

Talk about semantic nit-picking!

But suppose in my original reply I had used "asking" instead of
"expecting?" How would you have responded? My point would still have
been the same. Asking others to put in effort to save you effort may be
technically different from expecting them to, but it is still
objectionable IMO.

To my way of thinking, you used a semantic nit-pick to avoid dealing
with the real point of my post.

Anyway, let's drop it.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You got it!! I asked! Not expected! Asked. And my subject
line said Proposition. I proposed a solution, what I hoped for was a
resolution,
and thanks to others, the matter was settled.

Talk about semantic nit-picking!

But suppose in my original reply I had used "asking" instead of
"expecting?" How would you have responded? My point would still have
been the same. Asking others to put in effort to save you effort may be
technically different from expecting them to, but it is still
objectionable IMO.

To my way of thinking, you used a semantic nit-pick to avoid dealing
with the real point of my post.

Anyway, let's drop it.

*sigh*

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You got it!! I asked! Not expected! Asked. And my subject
line said Proposition. I proposed a solution, what I hoped for was a
resolution,
and thanks to others, the matter was settled.

Talk about semantic nit-picking!

No, you are nitpicking.

Quoted message said:

But suppose in my original reply I had used "asking" instead of
"expecting?" How would you have responded? My point would still have
been the same. Asking others to put in effort to save you effort may be
technically different from expecting them to, but it is still
objectionable IMO.

Good thing I didn't ask *you* for anything. My proposal affected
you in no way, shape or form.

Quoted message said:

To my way of thinking, you used a semantic nit-pick to avoid dealing
with the real point of my post.

That's because you put a meaning into my post that did not
exist. You never waste an opportunity to break your elbow
patting yourself on the back for all your perceived fine qualities,
but you see the worst in what others say.

The matter was settled before you said a word. If you read
the thread before posting your usual mean-spirited comment
you'd have known that.

nancy

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter A" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You got it!! I asked! Not expected! Asked. And my subject
line said Proposition. I proposed a solution, what I hoped for was a
resolution,
and thanks to others, the matter was settled.

Talk about semantic nit-picking!

No, you are nitpicking.

Quoted message said:

But suppose in my original reply I had used "asking" instead of
"expecting?" How would you have responded? My point would still have
been the same. Asking others to put in effort to save you effort may be
technically different from expecting them to, but it is still
objectionable IMO.

Good thing I didn't ask *you* for anything. My proposal affected
you in no way, shape or form.

Quoted message said:

To my way of thinking, you used a semantic nit-pick to avoid dealing
with the real point of my post.

That's because you put a meaning into my post that did not
exist. You never waste an opportunity to break your elbow
patting yourself on the back for all your perceived fine qualities,
but you see the worst in what others say.

The matter was settled before you said a word. If you read
the thread before posting your usual mean-spirited comment
you'd have known that.

Ignore him nancy.

"Ophelia" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Ignore him nancy.

Sorry, Ophelia.

nancy

Nancy Young said:

"Ophelia" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Ignore him nancy.

Sorry, Ophelia.

You don't need to be sorry nancy. What you did was good!

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:14:33 -0500, Omelet <omp_omelet@g_mail.com>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

jmcquown said:

That's all well and good. I've got a rule to block any posts that refer to
Nike in the subject. (Who on earth would by sneakers from a spammer,
anyway?) But you can't always know what key words these sneaky [censored]
will put in their subject lines. And the majority of this SPAM comes from
people with @gmail.com as their email address. It gets old trying to block
every possible combination of keywords these losers might dream up.

Jill

It used to be hotmail... and still is in a lot of e-mail spams I get.

I just got a spam email to my usenet account this morning.... so that
means someone reading this thread is a spammer. Why am I not
surprised?

--
See return address to reply by email

Janet Baraclough said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Omelet <omp_omelet@g_mail.com> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My killfile list for this group is second only to tx.guns due to
crossposting trolls.

Then use a newsreader which lets you set up a filter on crossposted
messages and specify how many crossposts qualifies each message for
the killfile. I have mine set to allow 2 crossposts, because those
are often genuine messages. Anything more than 2, they go straight in
the KF without even appearing on my screen.

I find it more profitable to filter certain newsgroups. There are some
the "cpts" use. Hitting those has pretty much taken care of the
problem, expect when some person here replies to the troll but removes
the cross-post.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Omelet said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Peter A <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

She certainly did not do me a service. I am not dumb enough to
believe that all posters from a particular server or domain are
incapable of contributing valuable comments to this group. I have
the wits and willingness to killfile individual people.

That can be awfully time consuming....

Not for me. My newsreader has a toolbar icon for "bozo bin", so it's a
one-click operation. Setting up a filter is more time-consuming, of
course.

Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)