[bestlayoutzz]

Is that here rec.audio sound group or just bunch of spammers?!

[Richard Crowley]

"bestlayoutzz" wrote from Goooooooooogle Groups ...
Is that here rec.audio sound group or just bunch of spammers?!

Get a real newsreader instead of that pathetic Google web portal.
Google is the #1 source of spam on Usenet today. Posts from
Google Groups and/or Gmail are filtered out automatically as
spam by many users.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

Get a real newsreader instead of that pathetic Google web portal.
Google is the #1 source of spam on Usenet today.

How will getting a new newsreader help that problem? Spam posters will
post whether their posts are filtered or not. If whatever news feed (not
really a reader problem) carries spam, just learn to ignore it and read
what you want to read. I don't read every article in the Washington
Post, nor do I read every article posted in rec.audio.pro.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
Get a real newsreader instead of that pathetic Google web portal.
Google is the #1 source of spam on Usenet today.

How will getting a new newsreader help that problem?

Has Google Groups implemented any kind of filtering?
If so, that is news to me. The last message I recall about
Google Groups stated that r.a.p was not showing up in
search results.

Not to mention that using Google Groups just encourages
them in their misanthropic behavior. Yes, I am aware that
I am tilting at windmills.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

Get a real newsreader instead of that pathetic Google web portal.
Google is the #1 source of spam on Usenet today.

How will getting a new newsreader help that problem? Spam posters will
post whether their posts are filtered or not. If whatever news feed (not
really a reader problem) carries spam, just learn to ignore it and read
what you want to read. I don't read every article in the Washington
Post, nor do I read every article posted in rec.audio.pro.

If you get an account on a real news service that is competently run, you
won't see very much spam, and you'll have a set of good tools to deal with
the spam that makes it through the server's filtering.

I can't imagine trying to read the whole r.a.p feed every day with Google.
It would drive me insane going through all that crap.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Andre Majorel]

On 2008-11-09, Mike Rivers wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

Get a real newsreader instead of that pathetic Google web portal.
Google is the #1 source of spam on Usenet today.

How will getting a new newsreader help that problem?

If you use a real newsreader, one that speaks NNTP, you can
choose from many news servers. Most of which are much, much
better than Google at keeping Usenet spam out.

Spam posters will post whether their posts are filtered or
not.

But you will not see it.

If whatever news feed (not really a reader problem) carries
spam, just learn to ignore it and read what you want to read.

"You could look for another restaurant, one that doesn't serve
excrement, but why don't you just learn to ignore the taste
instead ? Trust me. I know everything, which is why I can
dispense advice on any subject with such an assured tone."

--
André Majorel URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not
the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists -- Abbie Hoffman.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

Has Google Groups implemented any kind of filtering?

I don't know, but what difference does that make other than perhaps
reducing the number of bytes downloaded? And who pays by the byte any
more? I don't see a lot of difference between Google and Verizon. Scott
says he never sees spam. Well, if spam is watches and performance
enhancing drugs, I don't see any either. But I see a lot of junk I can
(and do) do without, like threads about homosexuals on the streets of
California or Brian McCarty posting as Bob Morein. I don't find it any
great problem just to skip over those headers.

There will always be junk in newsgroups whether it's commercial or not.
The only good filter is a human one. And the best human to do the
filtering is the one reading the newsgorup.




--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
Has Google Groups implemented any kind of filtering?

I don't know, but what difference does that make other than perhaps
reducing the number of bytes downloaded?

The difference is that most of the spam can be filered out.
Isn't spam what we are talking about here?

I see very little spam these days. Whether it is because my NNTP
provider (Supernews) is filtering it, or whether my own filtering is
responsible, I'm grateful either way.

But it seems quite unlikely that Google Groups will ever provide
a means of filtering out spam since they encourage and enable the
very spam we are complaining about.

And who pays by the byte any more?

Huh? Was that ever the point here?

I don't see a lot of difference between Google and Verizon.

Then Verizon must really suck. My condolences. Perhaps
that's why its so cheap. If I could get high-speed hard-wired
for what you're paying, I wouldn't be complaining about spam.

[Mike Rivers]

Richard Crowley wrote:

The difference is that most of the spam can be filered out.
Isn't spam what we are talking about here?

Depends on your definition of spam. I don't see ads for watches or
Viagra here. That's spam. What I see is long threads, cross-posted from
other newsgroups, about things that have nothing to do with audio, or
music, or computer interfaces, or anything related to what I come to
this newsgroup to read. But they contain real text, they read like real
discussions, they don't attempt to get the reader to go to a web site
selling something, they don't ask for your social security or credit
card number. So they're out of place, but they're not spam. With a
little effort, I could filter those messages locally so I don't see
them, but if they were blocked at the source, someone would probably
scream "First Amendment Rights" and I couldn't argue with that.

I see very little spam these days. Whether it is because my NNTP
provider (Supernews) is filtering it, or whether my own filtering is
responsible, I'm grateful either way.

Same here. So what are we arguing about? Probably not spam, but rather,
noise.

But it seems quite unlikely that Google Groups will ever provide
a means of filtering out spam since they encourage and enable the
very spam we are complaining about.

That's the business they're in. It doesn't seem to be a problem in
rec.audio.pro and that's what I care about. Take a look at the Google
Groups version of rec,audio.pro and tell me how much spam you see, and
what the nature of that spam is. Like it or not, spamming is big
business and the major spammers are very tech-savvy, able to keep just
slightly ahead of the ISPs. It keeps them busy, and they earn their
money. If my monthly ISP fee would go down if there were no spammers,
I'd be overjoyed, but I know that isn't going to happen.

I don't see a lot of difference between Google and Verizon.
Then Verizon must really suck.

But I didn't say that I had a problem with either one. Why does that
make Verizon suck. It would, if both were full of spam, but they aren't.

If I could get high-speed hard-wired
for what you're paying, I wouldn't be complaining about spam.

And I'm not complaining. You're complaining, and you seem to have found
a comfort level with what you're paying and whatever local filtering
you're doing. Good for you. I don't try to fix things that I don't
consider broken.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"Mike Rivers" wrote...
... you seem to have found a comfort level with what you're paying

I wish.