Hi, all,
On 26/09/1999, at 03:52,
Alexander V. Kiselev (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
went and see the gods, and told them:
Anti-spam filters (was:Re[5]: List Administration Note)
AVK> Hi there!
AVK> On 25 Sep 99, at 16:29, Steve Lamb wrote
AVK> about "Re: Anti-spam filters&q
Hi, all,
On 26/09/1999, at 08:21,
Ali Martin (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
facing the crowd, asked the gods to bless them and said:
AM> I wish to hear how you'd deal with his peculiar situation of having to
AM> deal with spammers who seem to stupidly believe in quality and not
AM> quantity.
My way.
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 11:39:27 PM, Thomas wrote:
SL>> I just press the delete key because any filtering would invariably cause
SL>> false-positives and a loss of mail.
> Thank you! Now we have the solution to this problem and can end the
> thread.
The thread would have ended two
Hallo Steve,
On Sunday, September 26, 1999, 2:35:13 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> I wish to hear how you'd deal with his peculiar situation of having to
>> deal with spammers who seem to stupidly believe in quality and not
>> quantity.
SL> I just press the delete key because any filtering would
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 11:21:34 PM, Ali wrote:
>> You have missed the point. He wasn't looking for discussion. He was
>> refuting advice I had given. There is a difference.
> But Steve, if your method doesn't work in his particular case, what
> other recourse does he have but to put
Hi all,
On Sunday, September 26, 1999, 12:44:43 AM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:
>> You missed the point. My point was that someone has a real problem,
>> which is off the norm, and you refuse to discuss it. Well then, don't.
>> But don't tell the author of that post, or the list, that this
>> shou
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 10:34:44 PM, Thomas wrote:
SL>> Please state where I have ridiculed it. It is anecdotal information.
SL>> Please don't make me to go m-w.com just to look up anecdote and information
SL>> for you, then explain why those two words combined mean exactly what I am
SL
Hallo Steve,
On Sunday, September 26, 1999, 7:25:34 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> Saturday, September 25, 1999, 6:37:57 AM, Thomas wrote:
>> That may well be. We have all unerstood what you are saying and are
>> thankful for it. And now, we are looking for a solution for a problem
>> that is *not* t
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 6:52:39 PM, Alexander wrote:
> doubled one, and succeeded in the same manner. For
> example, x=y would be $x=y$. I mean, "dollars" not *always*
> mean bux:-)
Good example. Another good one would be anyone working with perl or shell
scripts on unix and t
Hi there!
On 25 Sep 99, at 16:29, Steve Lamb wrote
about "Re: Anti-spam filters":
> Other filtering involves methods that produce a high amount of
> false-positives. When you (sex) get a lot of (erotic) mail in your spam
> folder (make money fast) that it gets more mail than your ($$$)
Hi all,
On Saturday, September 25, 1999, 6:29:17 PM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:
> Other filtering involves methods that produce a high amount of
> false-positives.
This is exactly why I wasn't using spam filters initially. Jokes from
friends would get 'nuked' and promotional male from softwa
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 7:14:10 AM, Claude wrote:
> Why not fighting both ?
Because the aberration is such a small number it isn't worth fighting on a
mass scale. Because the simple numbers of it all suggest that it cannot nor
will it ever become the norm. Because when spammers do it
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 7:35:28 AM, Claude wrote:
> I think that a minority problem may grows to a majority problem. When
> most of the people will filter with the *very good by now* "not me in
> TO", the spammers will, of course, change their way of acting...
Other filtering involves m
Saturday, September 25, 1999, 6:37:57 AM, Thomas wrote:
> That may well be. We have all unerstood what you are saying and are
> thankful for it. And now, we are looking for a solution for a problem
> that is *not* the norm. Why silence a minority voicing their problems
> by reasoning that the majo
Hi, all,
On 25/09/1999, at 15:37,
Thomas Fernandez (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
facing the crowd, asked the gods to bless them and said:
TF> That may well be. We have all unerstood what you are saying and are
TF> thankful for it. And now, we are looking for a solution for a problem
TF> that is *not
Hi, all,
On 25/09/1999, at 14:18,
Steve Lamb (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
climbed up a big rock and began to chant:
>> Do you think all the spammers *must* operate the same way ?
>> That is not haw your spammers operate, but, well, why an other one
>> couldn't do that ?
SL> What he has done,
Hallo Steve,
On Saturday, September 25, 1999, 8:18:00 PM, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> So *I* trust his experience *and* yours. They are different. What's
>> the matter ?
SL> One is the norm, one is not. One is based on personal anecdotal
SL> information, the other on years of indirect experience
Hi all,
On Saturday, September 25, 1999, 7:06:42 AM (-5 GMT), Steve scribbled:
> Regardless of your personal experience, that is not how the majority of
> the spammers operate. By replying and stating "Well, I don't see that" you
> cast doubt on my position and damage people's perceptions o
Friday, September 24, 1999, 10:16:08 PM, Thomas wrote:
SL>>> And in that same 35 minutes they could pump out ~120% more addresses. So
SL>>> if 5 is a "good" return, then 690 must be much better.
C>> There is a little difference between a post which is *sent* and a post
C>> which is *read*.
C>> Bu
Friday, September 24, 1999, 5:14:46 PM, Claude wrote:
> May be not, but it seems that *he* has 95% of spam different than
> yours :)
And an anecdotal aberration isn't something to give or countermand advice
upon.
> Do you think all the spammers *must* operate the same way ?
> That is not haw
Friday, September 24, 1999, 5:34:40 PM, Claude wrote:
> Nobody told you this is *your* case :-))
No. OTOH, I am giving advice based on my professional and personal
experience. I'd rather not have it countermanded by mere personal anecdotes
which run contrary to the established norm of the i
Hallo Claude,
On Saturday, September 25, 1999, 8:34:40 AM, Claude wrote:
SL>> Friday, September 24, 1999, 11:12:39 AM, Thomas wrote:
>>> I still think that overhead is not necessarily the concern of
>>> spammers. If they want to get the spam out, and it takes 35 minuters
>>> to do so instead of
Hi, all,
On 24/09/1999, at 22:32,
Steve Lamb (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
took a mike and sang on a blues tempo:
SL> Friday, September 24, 1999, 1:05:30 PM, Arunas wrote:
>> I, sure, am aware that it takes ALOT less resources when BCCing addresses.
>> However, as I told before, _I_ am getting on
Hi, all,
On 24/09/1999, at 22:38,
Steve Lamb (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
regrouped the troops and said:
Anti-spam filters (was:Re[5]: List Administration Note)
SL> Friday, September 24, 1999, 11:12:39 AM, Thomas wrote:
>> I still think that overhead is not necessarily the concern of
&g
Hi, all,
On 24/09/1999, at 20:12,
Thomas Fernandez (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
as the numerous people stopped applausing, told them:
F> I know that a mail
TF> from "Svetlana, the Russian Beauty" will be spam,
Really :-(
Did u know that, writing that, u was braking me poor little heart.
Cruel wor
Friday, September 24, 1999, 11:12:39 AM, Thomas wrote:
> I still think that overhead is not necessarily the concern of
> spammers. If they want to get the spam out, and it takes 35 minuters
> to do so instead of june 1 minute, but the chances are that they are
> read, they'll have success. Empiric
Friday, September 24, 1999, 1:05:30 PM, Arunas wrote:
> I, sure, am aware that it takes ALOT less resources when BCCing addresses.
> However, as I told before, _I_ am getting only ~5% of spam this way.
*sigh* Does your experience as a user counter mine as a postmaster of an
entire domain
On Thursday, September 23, 1999, 22:59:49 PM +0200, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
composed profoundly about 'Anti-spam filters (was:Re[5]: List Administration Note)':
SL> In short, the way that spammers operate, they aren't going to put the
SL> address in there wi
Hallo Steve,
On Saturday, September 25, 1999, 12:24:48 AM, Steve Lamb wrote:
SL> To Ron:
SL> Most likely not, the overhead is too high. When running on a short time
SL> frame are you really going to cut your throughput by 90+% just on the off
SL> chance that some ISPs may be filtering in a
Friday, September 24, 1999, 6:23:51 AM, Ali wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 1999, 8:18:56 AM (-5 GMT), Ron scribbled:
>> Yes, I'm getting a lot more spam addressed to me individually
>> recently. I'd say that half is now addressed to me directly. My
>> guess is that some spammers have found th
Hi all,
On Friday, September 24, 1999, 8:18:56 AM (-5 GMT), Ron scribbled:
> Yes, I'm getting a lot more spam addressed to me individually
> recently. I'd say that half is now addressed to me directly. My
> guess is that some spammers have found that people (or
> ISPs) are filtering out messag
On Thursday, September 23, 1999, Arunas Norvaisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was true perhaps 6-8 months ago. I don't know what kind of spam you
> are getting, but mine is addressed to me (well, 95 mails out of 100).
Yes, I'm getting a lot more spam addressed to me individually
rec
Hello Steve Lamb,
On Friday, September 24, 1999, 2:17:08 AM you told us:
Great Explanation Steve!
Now I will share how do I identify spam and create anti-spam,
especially for Dial Up User.
TF>> Now, how do you actually set the filter to identify spam, i.e.
TF>> make TB tell it apar
Thursday, September 23, 1999, 1:32:39 PM, Arunas wrote:
> This was true perhaps 6-8 months ago. I don't know what kind of spam you are
> getting, but mine is addressed to me (well, 95 mails out of 100). I think
> this is because their mailagents are getting updated and are capable of
> addressing
On Thursday, September 23, 1999, 21:17:08 PM +0200, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
composed profoundly about 'Anti-spam filters (was:Re[5]: List Administration Note)':
SL> Thursday, September 23, 1999, 10:49:59 AM, Thomas wrote:
>> Now, how do you actually set the fil
Thursday, September 23, 1999, 10:49:59 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Now, how do you actually set the filter to identify spam, i.e. make TB
> tell it apart from legitimate mail?
The one that I use which is actually quite simple takes some time to set
up but once done it works fine. It also takes a bit
Hi all,
On Thursday, September 23, 1999, 1:19:01 PM (-5 GMT), Marck scribbled:
> As Steve Lamb pointed out in his reply, it is fairly academic since
> spammers are very briefly lived members of the community. However, I
> personally manually drag an offending message to the Anit-Spam accou
On 23 September 1999 at 18:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] told the list:
TF>>> The only spam filter I could think of is a kill filter for
TF>>> messages addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd appreciate some tips.
MDP>> There was a posting to the old list from Leif Gregory which detailed a
MDP>> 'Hard Core'
Hallo Marck,
On Friday, September 24, 1999, 1:30:53 AM, Marck D. Pearlstone wrote:
TF>> The only spam filter I could think of is a kill filter for
TF>> messages addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd appreciate some tips.
MDP> There was a posting to the old list from Leif Gregory which detailed a
M
39 matches
Mail list logo
