RE: The "Offended" re-replies....

[Robert Peterson <petersonrbrt@yahoo.com>]

I didn't know this is a bash Microsoft list. I have a Windows PC, but any problems I have with spam have nothing to do with Microsoft. My problems stem from the fact that my wife filled out the wrong phishing form and gave away our email address. So, now I too get lots of spam. I could change my address, but haven't gotten around to that yet.

 

My spam problems are basically taken care of by Yahoo. 99% plus of the spam goes into its bulk file. I never look at that anymore, and they don't charge me for it. Occasionally an item slips through. I mark it by checking a box, press the spam button, and it's gone. Actually, this list is one of the biggest spam problems I have today. Mailings here are not identified, and I normally don't touch any mail I can't recognize from the sender or subject. That means I open a spam item occasionally, and mark occasional list items as spam. Since all this is done in a browser, and all incoming mail is scanned by Yahoo, Windows doesn't really come into play.

 

If you want to use a spam filter and not send this list through it, here is one way. Obtain a free email address at Yahoo. Have the list send your mail there. Don't tell anyone else about it, and be very devious with your user name. Check that mail box for this list. If my experience is valid, you won't get any spam. A second variation is to have the list mail to a forwarding server. Have that server send your mail through the spam filter.

 

Whatever. Just please spare me the Microsoft bashing, and the Microsoft made me do it theme.

 

Bob Peterson

 

Don Bryant <dsbryant@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Judy,
>
> Without going into excruciatingly boring detail, using a PC spam
>  filter
> and/or ISP spam filter is an absolute must for Microsoft users. Trust me I
> do everything I can to ward off dangerous e-mails. As obnoxious as
> spamenators can be, they do have a legitimate purpose. 
>
> And no we can't use the UNIX tools that you do (although there is a PC
> version of Pine). For me personally I quit using Pine many many years ago
> and never looked back.
>
> Figuratively speaking, if Microsoft didn't have their head up their
> collective hard drive they could solve this problem. In their defense they
> do make security patches available frequently (and BTW there are tons of
> security patches that are issued for UNIX systems as well.)
>
> I am truly sorry that you don't engage the internet with a graphical user
> interface or modern e-mail clients, you are missing a lot.
>
> But back to the point, having your system corrupted by a worm or virus is a
> life altering event for most of us these days. I have over 1,000,000
>  files
> on my PC and trying to rebuild a corrupted system is usually impossible to
> do quickly and safely. Re-installing and restoring is also a bummer and
> usually means weeks of system rebuild and software re-installs. 
>
> I can rebound from hardware failures with relative ease but virus infections
> are non-sequiturs even for the most geeky of us, resulting in man weeks of
> lost productivity and time.
>
> So please don't take these defenses personally, they aren't intended that
> way.
>
> Don Bryant
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 8:45 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
> Subject: Re: The "Offended" re-replies....
>
> Dear all,
>
> I kind of dreaded logging on today, expecting I'd be trashed. So A), glad 
> I wasn't and B), sometimes stuff needs saying. But let me point out two 
> things.
>
> 1. In my opinion there's a matter of ethics involved.
>  That is, to quote 
> the ethicist for the ages, Emanual Kant, "Act so that the maxim of your 
> action could be universal law."
>
> In other words, if every one of the subscribers to this list, all of whom 
> must have a problem with spam, whatever the size of their penii, used a 
> "blocker" similar to John's, the list would be unusable. Which is to say, 
> this kind of "blocker" on a list of this sort, needs to be the exception 
> not the rule. Kant would object, correctly IMO.
>
> 2. My system is crude, that is, dial up to a unix shell, writing in Pine, 
> text only.
>
> So I'm a Neanderthal, but AFAIK, this list doesn't have to be 
> schizophrenic, that is, if we love old processes we DON'T have to do it 
> with broadband. My digitons already torment me nigh unto death, I don't 
> deal with them more than absolutely essential -- and I'm otherwise 
> preoccupied at present.
>
> BUT -- the Spam filter offered by Panix has been, as noted, very
>  
> effective. Today, for instance, I had only one Spam (after, if memory 
> serves, 2 days). I believe their website is reachable by the public.. (I'm 
> not sure I could get there again -- my entire computer is in extremis, 
> sending me ominous messages at odd moments & crashing me 20 times per 
> hour. I know I have to deal with it, and I will -- when book is at the 
> printer.)
>
> But, is there some reason why a filter like this doesn't work for most 
> people? I also had a filter for the Post-Factory ISP (a different one at 
> the time), very effective too. The arrangement there was that Spam went to 
> a folder which I checked every few days -- there would be 70 or 80 
> e-mails in it, none of which I ever wanted to read.
>
> I also note that I got several inquiries about Post-Factory from folks who 
> neglected to notify their Spam blocker, so I got a notice similar to the 
> current one. I figured they were too stupid to appreciate great
>  
> literature & left it at that.
>
> Anyway, John, sorry if I was overwrought... It's been that kind of a year. 
> But kudos to you for the mea culpa...
>
> best,
>
> Judy