Suitable insect repellant to keep the infamous scottish midges at bay



[email protected] (D.M. Procida) wrote in
news:1h0gexr.tqn2by1j7ub2pN%[email protected]:

> Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> By the way, unless you have been granted the right to use the domain
> removethis.com, you shouldn't be using it.


Thanks for that Daniele (or whoever). It used to be "removethisbit" (which
isn't registered). I must have missed the "bit" off when I changed
machines. Now fixed!

Graeme
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote in news:2hcpr2-o45.ln1
@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:

> OK, why is this a problem? Yes, the above really is my real email
> address. Yes, I have used my real email address on all my (many) Usenet
> posts for the past twenty years (OK, the address has changed four times
> over that period). No, I don't have an excessive SPAM problem; or
> rather, spamassassin copes perfectly well with the spam I do get.
> So-called 'spam-trap' email addresses are more nuisance than they're
> worth, in my opinion.


Not really a problem unless, like me, you access your email from multiple
places and multiple devices from around the world and don't have the
infrstructure in place to run your own anti-spam software of whatever
capability. I did use a "proper" junk address that would receive mail for
a while in usenet posts ([email protected]) but that got totally swamped
with **** within a month or two of the address being used.

My hosting provider does provide some basic spam filtering (although
I've chosen just to have it tagged rather than filtered). The only stuff
that gets through now is non-valid addresses delivered to my domain, so
my spam-trap address does seem to work.

As for spam trap addresses being more trouble than they're worth, I
agree, some of them are rather obscure and a bit of a pain, e.g. the ones
that involve instructions in the sig to make it valid, or worse, require
instructions but don't give them. However there are some that are so
bloody obvious that if they can't be worked out then it acts as a nice
numpty filter for your email :) I think I've only emailed two or three
people from their addresses on usenet although I've been using it for
about 15 years, so I don't see it as a big problem anyway.

Graeme
 
Graeme wrote:
> [email protected] (D.M. Procida) wrote in
> news:1h0gexr.tqn2by1j7ub2pN%[email protected]:
>
>
>>Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>By the way, unless you have been granted the right to use the domain
>>removethis.com, you shouldn't be using it.

>
>
> Thanks for that Daniele (or whoever). It used to be "removethisbit" (which
> isn't registered). I must have missed the "bit" off when I changed
> machines. Now fixed!
>


That misses the point. You do not know that either removethis or
removethisbit are not or will not be valid domain names owned by someone
else that will receive all your spam and bounces. The only responsible
thing is to use the top level .invalid which is guaranteed not to point
to anyone else's domain or to use a domain name that you own so that
no-one else has to put up with the **** you are redirecting to them.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Graeme wrote:
>
>
> Not really a problem unless, like me, you access your email from multiple
> places and multiple devices from around the world and don't have the
> infrstructure in place to run your own anti-spam software of whatever
> capability. I did use a "proper" junk address that would receive mail for
> a while in usenet posts ([email protected]) but that got totally swamped
> with **** within a month or two of the address being used.
>


I am the same but there are many more responsible ways to deal with your
situation. You could use a mail service, like SpamCop, or ISP that does
the filtering for you; you could set up your return address as
[email protected]lid; you could set up Mozilla
Thunderbird on a memory stick so that you carry all your mail/usenet
messages and software with you to use on any computer with a USB port.
Thunderbird also has good spam filtering built in.

The way you are doing it is potentially pushing your problem onto some
unwitting and innocent victim.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
I submit that on or about Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:42:11 +0100, the person
known to the court as Tony Raven <[email protected]> made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
to the following effect:

>The only responsible
>thing is to use the top level .invalid which is guaranteed not to point
>to anyone else's domain or to use a domain name that you own so that
>no-one else has to put up with the **** you are redirecting to them.


Yes, yes, I know. But the Federal Trade Commission issued an open
invitation to send all spam to [email protected], so I just cut out the
middle-man :)


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You do know, actually. My office address is below. I'm in the phone
> > book. My office address used to be my home address, so my home address
> > also appears on several thousand Usenet articles.

>
> What you say is your home address. It could just as easily be a
> borrowed identity for all we can tell from the electrons you sculpt ;-)


Come round for a cup of coffee if you like.

Daniele
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I am the same but there are many more responsible ways to deal with
> your situation. You could use a mail service, like SpamCop, or ISP
> that does the filtering for you;


My ISP offers filtering, but it isn't infallible.

> you could set up Mozilla
> Thunderbird on a memory stick so that you carry all your mail/usenet
> messages and software with you to use on any computer with a USB port.


I've done this in the past and experienced a few problems, corrupted
messages (due, I think, to an iffy USB key) and the occassional PC that
won't recognise the key.

> Thunderbird also has good spam filtering built in.


Yes it is pretty good, but again, not infallible, even after having been
"taught" for 6 months or so.

The volume of spam I get is pretty low, almost certainly due to my
spam-trapped address. Yes, the domain I used was the wrong one, but to
keep the moaning minnies happy, it is now changed back to what it used to
be (a currently un-registered one). Well, it was un-registered when I
started this post. I've whipped out my credit card and registered
"removethisbit.com" so if anyone on URC feels like using it as a spam-
trap, feel free.

Graeme
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:3l0lqaF10i220U1
@individual.net:

> The only responsible
> thing is to use the top level .invalid which is guaranteed not to point
> to anyone else's domain or to use a domain name that you own so that
> no-one else has to put up with the **** you are redirecting to them.
>


The *only* responsible thing? Really? As I said in another post,
removethisbit.com is now registered by me. I prefer not to use the
..invalid as it isn't particularly intuitive to many people. A quick straw
poll around the office as to what it meant showed that people didn't
know, the assumption was that the proper email address that could be seen
was non-functional.

I used to own a number of other domains that used to get spam and emails
destined for other domains. And yes, I think some of that was due to
their attempts at spam-trapping their addresses (their domain was
gridit.com, mine was grid-it.com). It didn't particularly bother me. I
think only one genuine email came through to me that was destined for
them. It was a job application which I forwarded on, but I admit that I
added a comment about the terrible mis-spellings and grammar in her CV
and that she didn't even get an email address correct. I wonder if she
got the job?

Graeme
 
Graeme wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:3l0lqaF10i220U1
> @individual.net:
>
>
>>The only responsible
>>thing is to use the top level .invalid which is guaranteed not to point
>>to anyone else's domain or to use a domain name that you own so that
>>no-one else has to put up with the **** you are redirecting to them.
>>

>
>
> The *only* responsible thing? Really? As I said in another post,
> removethisbit.com is now registered by me. I prefer not to use the
> ..invalid as it isn't particularly intuitive to many people.


i.e. you have now done the second option I gave in "the only responsible
thing" of using a domain name that you own. Thank you.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I submit that on or about Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:42:11 +0100, the person
> known to the court as Tony Raven <[email protected]> made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's bundle)
> to the following effect:
>
>>The only responsible
>>thing is to use the top level .invalid which is guaranteed not to point
>>to anyone else's domain or to use a domain name that you own so that
>>no-one else has to put up with the **** you are redirecting to them.

>
> Yes, yes, I know. But the Federal Trade Commission issued an open
> invitation to send all spam to [email protected], so I just cut out the
> middle-man :)


Excellent! That's my new spamtrap address sorted.

--
Chris
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:3l61fsF113vpgU1
@individual.net:

> i.e. you have now done the second option I gave in "the only responsible
> thing" of using a domain name that you own. Thank you.


If we're stooping to that level of pedantry then should it not be "the only
responsible things"? :)

Graeme
 
Graeme wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:3l61fsF113vpgU1
> @individual.net:
>
>
>>i.e. you have now done the second option I gave in "the only responsible
>>thing" of using a domain name that you own. Thank you.

>
>
> If we're stooping to that level of pedantry then should it not be "the only
> responsible things"? :)
>
> Graeme


<pedant>

No, no-one can own any .invalid domain so the two options are mutually
exclusive and you can only do one of the two options. If I had
connected the two options with "and" you would have been correct.

</pedant>

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon