29 Mar
2005
29 Mar
'05
9:48 p.m.
rude?? really? why?
after years of having to sift through spam all the time and losing
real mails in the spam folders, i'm paranoid about releasing my real
address onto the web in any form. so far i think i've only received
the brute force type mails to my real address, where they just guess
your address, and, of course, the few that get sent to my disposable
addresses.
20 per day!?? eek! sounds like a huge pain to me.
i've received exactly 10 spams since feb 28th (today is march 29th),
all of which are to disposable addresses (from mailing lists like this
one) and i can delete the address if someone big decides to put one on
their list and send me tons of internet pharmaceutical mailings. i
think it's a nice way to operate.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:33:14 -0500, Larry Troxler lt-at-westnet.com
|Linux Audio Users| <...> wrote:
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 20:55, Jon B wrote:
Because it's rude not to?
Honestly, are people's spam filters that bad that they can't handle this, or
is mine so bad in the other direction, that unbeknownst to me, I'm missing
most of the private mail I get?
I always use my real email address on all the email lists I'm subsrcribed to,
and also on usenet, and also on all web based message boards.
And yet, I at most I get about 20 unsolicited commercial emails per day, more
typically only about 5 per day.
Again, since I seem to be the only one not worried about this problem, I
wonder if I'm somehow missing valid emails. But I don't think so, because I
haven't had any such complaints.
So, what gives? What's the magical difference about my ISP that I don't have
to make life difficult for other people by mangling my email address, and
making them go through contortions to reply to me?
Larry
lt(a)westnet.com
lt(a)westnet.com
lt(a)westnet.com
^ See, I'm not afraid!
unfortunately, it is true that i signed noah up for spam - after
receiving a bunch of spam yesterday, and with my troll-like rage still
brewing over our exchanges, i expediently blamed noah and signed him up
on one of the pages the spam led to.
Why are you using real email addresses on a mailing list in the first
place?
29 Mar
29 Mar
11:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam (was Re: public apology and withdrawal)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 at 21:48 -0500, Jon B wrote:
rude?? really? why?
after years of having to sift through spam all the time and losing
real mails in the spam folders, i'm paranoid about releasing my real
address onto the web in any form. so far i think i've only received
the brute force type mails to my real address, where they just guess
your address, and, of course, the few that get sent to my disposable
addresses.
20 per day!?? eek! sounds like a huge pain to me.
i've received exactly 10 spams since feb 28th (today is march 29th),
all of which are to disposable addresses (from mailing lists like this
one) and i can delete the address if someone big decides to put one on
their list and send me tons of internet pharmaceutical mailings. i
think it's a nice way to operate.
I used to be careful and care about where my email address went and
worry about spam. Then I realized that gee whiz I'm spending more effort
trying to avoid spam then I would be just dealing with it. I discovered
Paul Graham's "A Plan for Spam" essay and ESR's wonderful bogofilter
program. I have flung my email address around shamelessly for over two
years now, and I currently have only one or two "unsure" messages that
are really spam to deal with per day. The rest go to a spam file that I
mostly ignore but go dig in when I don't get that email from ebay that
I'm expecting (and of course I periodically purge it). Except for ebay
emails, most of which have a low SNR anyway, I very rarely get any false
positives. Even some legit ebay messages make it through - bogofilter
knows something I don't about telling the difference (or it has secretly
been observing my ebay auctions). Bayesian analysis is a pretty naive
and simplistic approach to email filtering, and yet it works amazingly
well. I choose to let my computer do the hard work in dealing with spam.
Not to say you're wrong in any way, but only to point out what I do.
--
.O. Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est.
..O http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg
OOO | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95 CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
30 Mar
30 Mar
12:51 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 14:52, Hans Fugal wrote:
I used to be careful and care about where my email
address went and
worry about spam. Then I realized that gee whiz I'm spending more effort
trying to avoid spam then I would be just dealing with it. I discovered
Paul Graham's "A Plan for Spam" essay and ESR's wonderful bogofilter
program. I have flung my email address around shamelessly for over two
years now, and I currently have only one or two "unsure" messages that
are really spam to deal with per day. The rest go to a spam file that I
mostly ignore but go dig in when I don't get that email from ebay that
...
Seeing Hans officially changed this thread to off-topic I'll
jump in and say I also use bogofilter with the same positive
results... once trained (took a month I guess) I now get ~zero
spam in my Inbox, ~2 per day in my unsure folder and 20 to 30
spams in my Trash, which automatically get purged after 3 days.
It works so well I'd like to write a song about it ! :-)
Hmm, an edgy zztop'd "Spam Boogie"... oh sheesh, maybe I should
sign off this list for awhile!
BTW this is an excellent indie blues orientated podcast...
http://feeds.feedburner.com/roadhouse (the RSS feed link)
--markc
3:13 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 07:50, Mark Constable wrote:
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 14:52, Hans Fugal wrote:
Here is another one successfully using bogofilter.
On my addresses @arnoldarts.de I get about 100-200 spam mails each day, where
bogofilter is unsure only about 2-6 a day.
Why do I get so much spam? Because I write in mailinglists (like this one)
which have public archives and because I have a homepage...
Arnold
--
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the
Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
-- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I used to be careful and care about where my
email address went and
worry about spam. Then I realized that gee whiz I'm spending more effort
trying to avoid spam then I would be just dealing with it. I discovered
Paul Graham's "A Plan for Spam" essay and ESR's wonderful bogofilter
program. I have flung my email address around shamelessly for over two
years now, and I currently have only one or two "unsure" messages that
are really spam to deal with per day. The rest go to a spam file that I
mostly ignore but go dig in when I don't get that email from ebay that
...
Seeing Hans officially changed this thread to off-topic I'll
jump in and say I also use bogofilter with the same positive
results... once trained (took a month I guess) I now get ~zero
spam in my Inbox, ~2 per day in my unsure folder and 20 to 30
spams in my Trash, which automatically get purged after 3 days. 
11:24 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
Here is another one successfully using bogofilter.
On my addresses @arnoldarts.de I get about 100-200 spam mails each day, where
bogofilter is unsure only about 2-6 a day.
Why do I get so much spam? Because I write in mailinglists (like this one)
which have public archives and because I have a homepage...
There was a study done not long ago about spam and if you use html
entities instead of actual characters for your email address the spam
crawlers don't seem to be sophisticated enough to pick it up. They
probably never will because there are enough elsewhere so why pay a
real programmer to do it right?
But the browser translates into a real email address if the user
presses on it ;)
Its just one way to reduce spam. I do think list managers should
protect thier users. This one doesn't?
12:37 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 18:24, Noah Roberts wrote:
Its just one way to reduce spam. I do think list
managers should
protect thier users. This one doesn't?
We don't talk about "the" list archive.
There are several servers and mailt-to* gateways out there mirroring /
archiving this list.
You went out to the public ;-) install and train spamassasin/bogofilter and
don't worry about spam any more. And don't buy the pills you get offered...
Arnold
--
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the
Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
-- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
2:38 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Arnold Krille wrote:
As maintainer of the "official" archive, we do hide email addresses in the
archives - please see latest archives for examples at:
http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2005/03/
This has been in place already for at least 3-5 years -- I cannot remember
the exact date when we started email address hiding.
I've also sent requests to the list asking all unofficial archive
maintainers to take the spam issue into account.
Its just one
way to reduce spam. I do think list managers should
protect thier users. This one doesn't?
We don't talk about
"the" list archive. You went out to the public ;-) install and train
spamassasin/bogofilter and
don't worry about spam any more. And don't buy the pills you get offered...
I used my previous address for +10 years and it is now getting 200-400
spams a day. Sure I can filter it, but looking for false-positives is just
impossible with this much spam coming in. So I've now gone through with
the painful operation of changing my address, and now get a lot less spam
(actually almost none). I know I won't be spam free forever, but any steps
to slow down the spam flood is _very_ welcome. Hiding addresses in openly
available archives is one easy step to take - less spam to filter,
everybody wins.
--
http://www.eca.cx
Audio software for Linux!
3:14 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 21:38, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
I used my previous address for +10 years and it is now
getting 200-400
spams a day. Sure I can filter it, but looking for false-positives is just
impossible with this much spam coming in. So I've now gone through with
the painful operation of changing my address, and now get a lot less spam
(actually almost none). I know I won't be spam free forever, but any steps
to slow down the spam flood is _very_ welcome. Hiding addresses in openly
available archives is one easy step to take - less spam to filter,
everybody wins.
Back then when I started with bogofilter I feed it with ~1000 collected spam
mails and ~10000 good mails from lists and private mail. Since then I update
it with the spam slipping through. That way I have reduced spam to currently
2-5 a day.
You might train your filter with the archives of this list while you are
admin. :-)
Arnold
--
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the
Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be
replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
-- Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
3:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0300, Kai Vehmanen wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Arnold Krille wrote:
As maintainer of the "official" archive, we do hide email
addresses in the
archives - please see latest archives for examples at:
http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2005/03/
This has been in place already for at least 3-5 years -- I cannot remember
the exact date when we started email address hiding.
It was around February or March of 2000. I wasn't on the list then, but
I've just about finished reading the March 2000 archives. The archive
was set up in Feb/Mar 2000.
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
Its just
one way to reduce spam. I do think list managers should
protect thier users. This one doesn't?
We don't talk about "the"
list archive.
3:50 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 03:17:06PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:38:39PM +0300, Kai Vehmanen
wrote:
Um ... sorry I was referring to the LAD list, not LAU. LAU hadn't been
started yet in 2000. But, presumably when the LAU list was started up
its archives got the same treatment the LAD list has had since 2000.
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Arnold Krille wrote:
As maintainer of the "official" archive, we do hide email
addresses in the
archives - please see latest archives for examples at:
http://lalists.stanford.edu/lau/2005/03/
This has been in place already for at least 3-5 years -- I cannot remember
the exact date when we started email address hiding.
It was around February or March of 2000. I wasn't on the list then, but
I've just about finished reading the March 2000 archives. The archive
was set up in Feb/Mar 2000. Its just
one way to reduce spam. I do think list managers should
protect thier users. This one doesn't?
We don't talk about "the"
list archive. 
4:41 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT Spam
El mié, 30-03-2005 a las 05:12, Arnold Krille escribió:
[snip]
Why do I get so much spam? Because I write in
mailinglists (like this one)
which have public archives and because I have a homepage...
Arnold
Just to comment, no to begin a war:
Same situation here, but in my case spam seems to be "periodical",
sometimes I get ~20, sometimes none. I don't know if my ISP runs a spam
filter.
I'm also suscribed to 11 mailinglist, all public, and have a webpage. I
don't use any spam filter, but I do two things:
* Everytime my e-mail address is written in the webpage, I put it
mynameNOMESPAMEES(en/at)PORFAVORTELOPIDOmyhost.com.mycountrysuffix . The
mix of spanish words seems to work very fine.
* In mailing list, I write a personal e-mail to everyone who responds
any of my mails with my e-mail on it (On 12/12/02 perezmeyer@.. wrote:),
telling him/her that the mails are going to be public and also my
e-mail, so it would be great if he/she would change him/her mail client
setup.
Cheers, Damian-
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to
understand that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." --
Ronald Reagan
1 Apr
1 Apr
10:59 p.m.
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 21:48, Jon B wrote:
rude?? really? why?
Because it requires of the person who volunteers their time to help you, that
they also must now decipher what your email address really is, so that they
can correspond with you.
after years of having to sift through spam all the time and losing
real mails in the spam folders, i'm paranoid about releasing my real
address onto the web in any form. so far i think i've only received
the brute force type mails to my real address, where they just guess
your address, and, of course, the few that get sent to my disposable
addresses.
20 per day!?? eek! sounds like a huge pain to me.
Actually, 20 per day was actually an exaggeration, it's rare that I get that
many in one day, that pass through the spam blocker. But even if I did, in
what way would that be considered a "huge pain"? I mean, do you not subscribe
to any email lists? If so, do you not routinely zap 20 or 30 uninteresting
legitimate messages in less then a minute, each time you retreive email? Or
do you actually read every single message you get from every email list
you're subscribed to? If not, then how would an additional 10 or 20 spam
messages really make that much difference - you would just delete them just
like you delete uninteresting mailing list messages, wouldn't you? It surely
doesn't take more than a minute or two to do this.
Larry
2 Apr
2 Apr
1:35 p.m.
On Friday 01 April 2005 10:59 pm, Larry Troxler wrote:
On Tuesday 29 March 2005 21:48, Jon B wrote:
If I had been asked/answered about the rudeness I would have mentioned somehow
a basic lack of forthrightness / courage as the source of rudeness. If you
want to talk to me, have the courtesy / courage to let me know with who I'm
talking.
Randy Kramer
rude?? really? why?
Because it requires of the person who volunteers their time to help you,
that they also must now decipher what your email address really is, so that
they can correspond with you.
6970
days inactive
6974
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
12 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Arnold Krille -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Hans Fugal -
Jon B -
Kai Vehmanen -
Larry Troxler -
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer -
Mark Constable -
Noah Roberts -
Randy Kramer