FYI usenet name/email change

[Toby Douglass]

I'm getting so much spam to [email protected] I'm flipping over to
my RL name/email address, with a spamblock. Let's hope the spamblock
works.

--
Toby

 

[Call me Bob]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:36:58 +0100, Toby Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm getting so much spam to [email protected] I'm flipping over to
>my RL name/email address, with a spamblock. Let's hope the spamblock
>works.

It should work fine, I've never received even one spam message to the
munged email address I use for newsgroup postings.

The only problem I can see with using your proper email addy is if it
does somehow get on the lists you are screwed.
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the bastards'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Call me Bob
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:36:58 +0100, Toby Douglass
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I'm getting so much spam to [email protected] I'm flipping over to
>>my RL name/email address, with a spamblock. Let's hope the spamblock
>>works.
>
> It should work fine, I've never received even one spam message to the
> munged email address I use for newsgroup postings.
>
> The only problem I can see with using your proper email addy is if it
> does somehow get on the lists you are screwed.

My personal email address, unmunged, is on about 14,000 usenet posts,
according to Google. It gets about four or five spams turning up in my
inbox every day, slightly more at weekends. I can cope with this.

My work email address is not used on Usenet but appears on about 84
documents on the Web. It gets thirty to fifty spams every day.

Both of these addresses are filtered using Spamassassin
<URL:http://spamassassin.apache.org/>. It's obvious that the spammers
who work on usenet addresses are not as inventive as the ones as the
ones who harvest addresses from the Web, and so the bayesian filters
are 99% successful at identifying them.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'graveyards are full of indispensable people'

 

[Vivian]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Call me Bob
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> My personal email address, unmunged, is on about 14,000 usenet posts,
> according to Google. It gets about four or five spams turning up in my
> inbox every day, slightly more at weekends. I can cope with this.
>
> My work email address is not used on Usenet but appears on about 84
> documents on the Web. It gets thirty to fifty spams every day.
>

When I started posting in newsgroups 6 years ago, I innocently used my own
e-mail address. Big mistake. The spam I started getting was practically a
violation of my human rights! Once, I downloaded -mails after a 2 week
period of "computer inactivity", and there were 601 messages, only 3 from
friends of mine!! I changed the address, took it off the newsgroups,
installed a spam filter, and voila! No more spam.

I read on the news a while ago that the govermnet was looking into
prosecuting spammers, but these bastards found a loophole in the law.
Anybody has more info on that?

--
Vivian
-------
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school".
No Surrender

 

[Carol Hague]

Vivian <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> When I started posting in newsgroups 6 years ago, I innocently used my own
> e-mail address. Big mistake. The spam I started getting was practically a
> violation of my human rights! Once, I downloaded -mails after a 2 week
> period of "computer inactivity", and there were 601 messages, only 3 from
> friends of mine!! I changed the address, took it off the newsgroups,
> installed a spam filter, and voila! No more spam.

In contrast, I've been using the same email address on Usenet,
Yahoogroups and on our company website for five or six years now. I get
spam, sure, but not unmanageable amounts of it.


>
> I read on the news a while ago that the govermnet was looking into
> prosecuting spammers, but these bastards found a loophole in the law.
> Anybody has more info on that?

I doubt very much whether spammers care if what they do is legal or not.
And besides, legal where? The internet doesn't belong to any one
country, however much the USA would like it to, so legislating to
prevent spam in one country isn't going to stop it, unfortunately.
--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <1gim3i2.nz1wmc1ee2hukN%[email protected]>, Carol Hague
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Vivian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>
>> When I started posting in newsgroups 6 years ago, I innocently used
>> my own e-mail address. Big mistake. The spam I started getting was
>> practically a
>> violation of my human rights! Once, I downloaded -mails after a 2
>> week period of "computer inactivity", and there were 601 messages,
>> only 3 from friends of mine!! I changed the address, took it off the
>> newsgroups, installed a spam filter, and voila! No more spam.
>
> In contrast, I've been using the same email address on Usenet,
> Yahoogroups and on our company website for five or six years now. I
> get spam, sure, but not unmanageable amounts of it.

Errrmmm, attributions. I didn't write any of that. My experience is the
same as yours, and I think 'spamtrapped' email addresses are a cure
worse than the disease.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

 

[Carol Hague]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> in message <1gim3i2.nz1wmc1ee2hukN%[email protected]>, Carol Hague
> ('[email protected]') wrote:

<stuff snipped wot someone else wrote>

> > In contrast, I've been using the same email address on Usenet,
> > Yahoogroups and on our company website for five or six years now. I
> > get spam, sure, but not unmanageable amounts of it.
>
> Errrmmm, attributions. I didn't write any of that.

Many apologies - I do know better, honest.

>My experience is the
> same as yours, and I think 'spamtrapped' email addresses are a cure
> worse than the disease.

I was told, when I first started posting to Usenet that they were "bad
form" but they seem more and more prevalent these days.

--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

 

[Call me Bob]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:18:01 +0100, [email protected] (Carol Hague)
wrote:

>>My experience is the
>> same as yours, and I think 'spamtrapped' email addresses are a cure
>> worse than the disease.
>
>I was told, when I first started posting to Usenet that they were "bad
>form" but they seem more and more prevalent these days.

I don't see the problem with spam trapped addresses in newsgroups,
seems like an ideal solution for usenet.

It's not very often people need to reply by email to a usenet posting
but if it becomes necessary then it takes only a moment to amend the
address. A very simple precaution which causes almost zero
inconvenience and gives practically complete protection from usenet
email spam.

It seems that address harvesting from newsgroups isn't that big a
problem nowadays, but I'm sick to the back teeth of miracle weight
loss patches and penis pills so such a measure is a no brainer for me.
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the bastards'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Carol Hague]

Call me Bob <[email protected]> wrote:


> It's not very often people need to reply by email to a usenet posting
> but if it becomes necessary then it takes only a moment to amend the
> address.

Provided of course that the spamtrap is an obvious one, or explained in
a sig. Most are, but some aren't.

I think, in the olden days, many spamtraps were of the sort that
involved using a domain name that didn't belong to the user. Most
people, when it was explained to them why this was antisocial amended
their traps accordingly, but some didn't, which may be why the practice
was denigrated by some people.

>A very simple precaution which causes almost zero
> inconvenience and gives practically complete protection from usenet
> email spam.

I post to usenet with my unmunged email address. I probably get *less*
spam than my husband, who doesn't post to usenet at all.

Which proves nothing really, except that the world is a weird place, and
most of us probably knew that already.

>
> It seems that address harvesting from newsgroups isn't that big a
> problem nowadays, but I'm sick to the back teeth of miracle weight
> loss patches and penis pills so such a measure is a no brainer for me.

I wasn't meaning to denigrate people who use spamtraps, I was just sort
of wondering aloud why some people get so much more spam than others.


--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Call me Bob
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 20:18:01 +0100, [email protected] (Carol Hague)
> wrote:
>
>>>My experience is the
>>> same as yours, and I think 'spamtrapped' email addresses are a cure
>>> worse than the disease.
>>
>>I was told, when I first started posting to Usenet that they were "bad
>>form" but they seem more and more prevalent these days.
>
> I don't see the problem with spam trapped addresses in newsgroups,
> seems like an ideal solution for usenet.

Two things: first it's impolite, and secondly (if this matters to you)
it's in breach of the coventions.

RFC 1036 says:

2.1. Required Header lines

2.1.1. From

The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. It may
optionally also contain the full name of the person, in parentheses,
after the electronic address. The electronic address is the same as
the entity responsible for originating the message, unless the
"Sender" header is present, in which case the "From" header might
not be verified.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Two things: first it's impolite, and secondly (if this matters to you)
> it's in breach of the coventions.
>
> RFC 1036 says:
>
> 2.1. Required Header lines
>
> 2.1.1. From
>
> The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
> person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax. It may
> optionally also contain the full name of the person, in parentheses,
> after the electronic address. The electronic address is the same as
> the entity responsible for originating the message, unless the
> "Sender" header is present, in which case the "From" header might
> not be verified.
>

I'm OK then as mine is a valid e-mail address. It just so happens that
unless the e-mail originates from the news server domain, e-mail to that
address goes straight in the bin at the server (ever so politely mind you).

Tony

 

[Call me Bob]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:05:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> I don't see the problem with spam trapped addresses in newsgroups,
>> seems like an ideal solution for usenet.
>
>Two things: first it's impolite

Nonsense, it's not even remotely impolite.

>and secondly (if this matters to you)
>it's in breach of the coventions.
>
>RFC 1036 says:
>
>2.1. Required Header lines
>
>2.1.1. From
>
> The "From" line contains the electronic mailing address of the
> person who sent the message, in the Internet syntax.

Matters to me? Well, yes, and no. I certainly care about usenet as a
community and a resource, however I don't care to display blind
obedience to "rules" simply because someone, somewhere, once, wrote
them down.

I'm careful (usually) to format my posts properly and with
consideration to other usenet users. If some of those other users
begrudge me a simple spamtrap to help eliminate some of the **** from
my inbox then I would suggest it is they who are impolite and
inconsiderate. Particularly as this small measure causes them
virtually no inconvenience at all.
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the bastards'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:26:36 +0100, Carol Hague <[email protected]> wrote:
> Call me Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's not very often people need to reply by email to a usenet posting
>> but if it becomes necessary then it takes only a moment to amend the
>> address.
>
> Provided of course that the spamtrap is an obvious one, or explained in
> a sig. Most are, but some aren't.
>
> I think, in the olden days, many spamtraps were of the sort that
> involved using a domain name that didn't belong to the user.

Just like "Call me Bob"'s above you mean. I assume he doesn't own
COFFEEtoomanypenguins.co.uk.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:21 +0100,
Call me Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> inconsiderate. Particularly as this small measure causes them
> virtually no inconvenience at all.

Except if they want to reply by email. It then causes a small amount
of inconvenience. If everyone uses their own type of spam-trap that
inconvenience is increased as someone has to work out how to de-spam
trap your address.

Also for someone it could be causing a great deal of inconvenience.
If I registered the domain COFFEEtoomanypenguins.co.uk I would be
receiving all your spam and maybe some of your real non-spam (some
people might not untrap your address) email.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Tony Raven]

Andy Leighton wrote:
>
>
> Except if they want to reply by email. It then causes a small amount
> of inconvenience. If everyone uses their own type of spam-trap that
> inconvenience is increased as someone has to work out how to de-spam
> trap your address.
>

This is Usenet and there should be no need to reply other than to the
group. In fact I generally dislike e-mails to me about a Usenet
discussion unless I have specifically invited the sender to go to e-mail.

Tony

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Call me Bob <[email protected]> writes:

> I'm sick to the back teeth of miracle weight loss patches and penis
> pills so such a measure is a no brainer for me.

Well don't buy them, then! It'll stop the rest of us getting spammed,
too.

A

 

[Carol Hague]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Andy Leighton wrote:
> >
> >
> > Except if they want to reply by email. It then causes a small amount
> > of inconvenience. If everyone uses their own type of spam-trap that
> > inconvenience is increased as someone has to work out how to de-spam
> > trap your address.
> >
>
> This is Usenet and there should be no need to reply other than to the
> group. In fact I generally dislike e-mails to me about a Usenet
> discussion unless I have specifically invited the sender to go to e-mail.

Which is fair enough, but not universal - indeed, RFC 1855 states

:- Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only.
Remember that News has global distribution and the whole world
probably is NOT interested in a personal response. However, don't
hesitate to post when something will be of general interest to the
Newsgroup participants.

<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html>

I believe that on some groups it was considered polite to send an email
copy of your replies to the person you were following up to, but that
may have changed by now - certainly not a practice to be envouraged on a
high-traffic group like this one....

--
Carol
"I was just being a little teapot. It's a bad habit of mine"
- Wyvern, Randall & Hopkirk (Deceased).

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:57:30 +0100, Carol Hague <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Andy Leighton wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Except if they want to reply by email. It then causes a small amount
>> > of inconvenience. If everyone uses their own type of spam-trap that
>> > inconvenience is increased as someone has to work out how to de-spam
>> > trap your address.
>> >
>>
>> This is Usenet and there should be no need to reply other than to the
>> group. In fact I generally dislike e-mails to me about a Usenet
>> discussion unless I have specifically invited the sender to go to e-mail.
>
> Which is fair enough, but not universal - indeed, RFC 1855 states
>
>:- Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only.

Also if I was to conduct a survey of a newsgroup's members I would
expect replies by email which I would then summarise after a specific
time as a newsgroup post. This used to be usual practise and cut down
a lot on long, generally boring threads consisting of similar answers.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Velvet]

Andy Leighton wrote:


>>>>
>>>
>>>This is Usenet and there should be no need to reply other than to the
>>>group. In fact I generally dislike e-mails to me about a Usenet
>>>discussion unless I have specifically invited the sender to go to e-mail.
>>
>>Which is fair enough, but not universal - indeed, RFC 1855 states
>>
>>:- Send mail when an answer to a question is for one person only.
>
>
> Also if I was to conduct a survey of a newsgroup's members I would
> expect replies by email which I would then summarise after a specific
> time as a newsgroup post. This used to be usual practise and cut down
> a lot on long, generally boring threads consisting of similar answers.
>

I tend to go on the principle that I use an invalid mail addy on usenet.
If I post something where I'm after someone in particular or the
topic's not likely to be of interest to the group or anyone scanning the
group archives (google groups) then I'll put a munged addy and point
this out, etc.

--


Velvet

 

[David Hansen]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:57:30 +0100 someone who may be
[email protected] (Carol Hague) wrote this:-

>I believe that on some groups it was considered polite to send an email
>copy of your replies to the person you were following up to, but that
>may have changed by now - certainly not a practice to be envouraged on a
>high-traffic group like this one....

At one time, when such ideas grew up, it was possible to read the
whole of Usenet.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.