"Chris French and Helen Johnson" wrote
in message ...

Personally I wouldn't trust an ISP not to cock it up.

Speaking as someone who's worked as a techie at one of the UK ISP's that
offer spam filtering services, I consider yours to be a very wise
standpoint.

On Fri, 7 May 2004 11:01:05 +0100, "Matt Barton"
wrote:


"Chris French and Helen Johnson" wrote
in message ...

Personally I wouldn't trust an ISP not to cock it up.

Speaking as someone who's worked as a techie at one of the UK ISP's that
offer spam filtering services, I consider yours to be a very wise
standpoint.

Would you like to name your former employer? :-)

The message
from "RichardS" noaccess@invalid contains these words:

You might also want to add a signature to your posts containing a munged
email address so that folks genuinely wanting to email you are able to do so
(that is entirely a personal preference though). It seems to work - I don't
recall getting any spam addressed to my email contained within my sig.

Actually, it isn't a personal preference - AUP dictates that you should
include in any post a way of replying to it by e-mail.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "Tumbleweed" contains these words:

Newsgroups: uk.rec.gardening
Subject: OT - hiding email details on newsgroups
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:12:07 +0100
Lines: 9
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409

there's one born every minute!

Do you mean someone who paid money for a newreader that does nothing
significantly different or extra that OE (for free) doesnt?

What? Like opening a virus for you when you open an e-mail?

get yourself a decent newsreader client for a start
then in the 'from' field put some thing like '
and in the reply-to field something like vickyversa at yahoo dot
co dot uk which a human can read (and edit) if they need to but a
machine won't recognize.

you MAY be able to do something similar with OE but I can't check as I
wont have that piece of crap on my machine.

So whats wrong with it, specifically? (you can certainly mangle addresses
with it) and since you dont have it and are apparently know nothing about
it, I wonder why you call it a 'piece of crap'.

It's insecure. It defaults to Usenet-unfriendly (and mail-unfriendly)
presentational gimmicks, it's insecure, it encourages top-posting, it's
insecure, oh, if you dn't know by now, there's no hope.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "Tumbleweed" contains these words:

It may be more powerful but that is definitely at the expense of
ease-of-use. This is from a desktop rather than a server POV. What it has
got going for it ATM is relative immunity to viruses, partially because of
how it works and partially because the virus/worm writers dont target it.

Yet. In fact it has been targeted

I have lifted this out of a Zetnet help group - I hope its author, a
rather techy Zetgod, won't mind:


: And I wonder how long this window of safety for Linux users will
: continue - virus writers must have them in their sights by now!

: Unix software has been under attack before, and does get attacked.
: Remember the "Internet Worm" of 1988?

: It is almost impossible for unprivileged users receiving an email to
: cause that machine to be infected. Reasons:

: * Sensible mail clients don't do anything with executable attachments
: * User privilege only applies to user's own files

: Server-level vulnerabilities are patched around much more quickly. Unix
: boxes tend not to have monolithic software that needs complete
: replacement (eg. IIS).

: ssh had many exploits out for it, most of which were fixed within 24
: hours. Matrix Reloaded shows an old ssh being exploited.

: The other advantage is diversity of software.

: I'd expect MySQL to be one of the first targets of the black hats,
: which is one reason why we don't use it for our own purposes (apart
: from it being a toy database server).

The whole thread might be of interest - unfortunately (for non-Zetnuts)
the Zetgroups are closed to outside reading/contribution now, after
being invaded by trolls and (self?) abusers some years ago.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from martin contains these words:

Abusing MS products is a sort of religion.

Some of them are quite good - Visual Basic, for instance. Too many of
them, though, are far too bloated, and they create files which are
unnecessarily large.

I'm only surprised that the all powerful Holy Linux hasn't been
mentioned, so far :-)

Now you've opened a whole new can of - milk and honey.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from martin contains these words:
On Thu, 6 May 2004 19:41:19 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

/snip/

It may be more powerful but that is definitely at the expense of
ease-of-use. This is from a desktop rather than a server POV. What it has
got going for it ATM is relative immunity to viruses, partially because of
how it works and partially because the virus/worm writers dont target it.

I have similar experience and I totally agree with you.

Yes. I have Debian on my best box, and it's proving to be one of those
things I keep meaning to get to grips with......

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Chris French and Helen Johnson
contains these words:

ISP has spam filter, ISP filters out what it thinks is spam, someone
doesn't receive an email, loses big contract, sues ISP.......? Though
most ISP's seem to bringing something like this in.

Personally I wouldn't trust an ISP not to cock it up.

My ISP kills only spam which is 'known', which means I get between three
and ten spam items a day. Only the very freshest virus isn't killed on
the server.

I do trust Zetnet not to cock it up.

Actually most of the crap we are getting isn't spam anyway, but endless
variations of one virus or another. Or auto replies from virus scanners
etc. telling me that someone sent out a virus email using a fake email
address at my domain - idiots.

Ah. I don't get any of that.

Dave mentioned somewhere about having a valid Reply-to address. I've
been doing that for some years now. While the from address is harvested,
the reply to's haven't received any significant spam at all. Though I do
use a disposable address, just in case. I much prefer this to a junk
address.

There are trojans now which given the opportunity, will ransack your
kept mail and news if you use OE, and scan the headers for addresses.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from (jane) contains these words:

Anyone actually see the lunar eclipse? It was behind a load of trees
from here and I couldn't get the 'scope to a visible spot!

Yes. Through a slight haze of mist.

I took a few pics - probably somewhat shaky as with a handheld SLR -
remind me in a few weeks: I might have had them developed.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from "Tumbleweed" contains these words:

/snip/

Your friends who were clueless enough to open up & run attachments from
unknown people? Those same friends would have done that on Agent.

Probably had the preview window active.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

On Fri, 7 May 2004 11:52:32 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "RichardS" noaccess@invalid contains these words:

You might also want to add a signature to your posts containing a munged
email address so that folks genuinely wanting to email you are able to do so
(that is entirely a personal preference though). It seems to work - I don't
recall getting any spam addressed to my email contained within my sig.

Actually, it isn't a personal preference - AUP dictates that you should
include in any post a way of replying to it by e-mail.

but personal preference dictates that some don't and that is amongst
the population who know what AUP is.

On Fri, 7 May 2004 12:05:36 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from "Tumbleweed" contains these words:

Newsgroups: uk.rec.gardening
Subject: OT - hiding email details on newsgroups
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 09:12:07 +0100
Lines: 9
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409

there's one born every minute!

Do you mean someone who paid money for a newreader that does nothing
significantly different or extra that OE (for free) doesnt?

What? Like opening a virus for you when you open an e-mail?

but we all have firewalls and anti-virus tools installed don't we?


get yourself a decent newsreader client for a start
then in the 'from' field put some thing like '
and in the reply-to field something like vickyversa at yahoo dot
co dot uk which a human can read (and edit) if they need to but a
machine won't recognize.

you MAY be able to do something similar with OE but I can't check as I
wont have that piece of crap on my machine.

So whats wrong with it, specifically? (you can certainly mangle addresses
with it) and since you dont have it and are apparently know nothing about
it, I wonder why you call it a 'piece of crap'.

It's insecure. It defaults to Usenet-unfriendly (and mail-unfriendly)
presentational gimmicks, it's insecure, it encourages top-posting, it's
insecure, oh, if you dn't know by now, there's no hope.

In other words you don't like it?

On Fri, 7 May 2004 12:09:11 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

Abusing MS products is a sort of religion.

Some of them are quite good - Visual Basic, for instance. Too many of
them, though, are far too bloated, and they create files which are
unnecessarily large.

bloat is absolutely irrelevant on modern PCs.

For those who performed miracles with 4K memories in the era before
PCs all PC software has always been bloated.


I'm only surprised that the all powerful Holy Linux hasn't been
mentioned, so far :-)

Now you've opened a whole new can of - milk and honey.

and blindness to it's weaknesses? :-)

Derek Turner wrote:


hth
Derek

What a dickhead! Rude & punctilious in the extreme.

To the original poster, it's probably too late luv, get a new address
and be more secretive in terms of whatever prog you're using for Usenet.
You'll need to read the emanuelle.

PS you can spam this address all you want, I never read it.

In message , martin
writes
A more common approach is for the ISP to tag mail it has identified as
SPAM and pass all mail to user. The user decides what to do with it.
Franz and I use different ISPs that both operate this way. I think
Franz bins his without looking, after deciding that after several
months of checking, that his ISP was fool proof, I filter mine into
the trash folder and take a quick look before deleting. This seems to
be a reasonable way for an ISP to detect and handle spam.

One of my ISP's (Freeserve) has started doing that, I keep meaning to
see if I can turn it off, as my own spam filter (K9) is much more
effective (and in fact nearly all the email through that account is spam
or virus related crap anyway due to my email arrangements.)
--
Chris French and Helen Johnson, Leeds
urg Suppliers and References FAQ:
http://www.familyfrench.co.uk/garden/urgfaq/index.html