Re: Response to spam

From: Arch <>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:18:59 -0500
Message-ID: <>

On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:07:55 -0600, John Mishefske <> wrote:

>Martijn Tonies wrote:
>>> I know that quite often members of the group don't see the outcome of
>>> what some of us do to fight spam. Here's one positive outcome.
>And kudos to Daniel for showing us a positive outcome and for his
>diligence. And to James for understanding.

I have to agree, wholeheartedly. It is very easy to grow frustrated, seeing the seemingly endless stream of spam spewed upon the forums. That makes it easy to give up and stop sending in the abuse reports. Daniel has showed us that it might not be totally futile.

>> Although James replies in a positive way and I do appreciate anyone who
>> fights spam (in a decent way ;-), this is hardly "real" spam. James posted
>> to this group without knowing the charter, he got directed to it and replies
>> to that ( I've done the same in the past ). Big deal. This hardly is spam.
>But Daniel couldn't determine if James knew the charter from that one post.
>> Spam? Fight the damn "MI5" spammer who posted his tens of messages
>> coming from different e-mail addresses all over the public newsgroups!

I believe that guy is some kind of lunatic or nut job. There is no point in trying to reason with him. The closest to an effective solution is the one I've chosen - a newsreader with a regex configurable kill filter.

>Agreed. The MI5 spammer gathers no sympathy to whatever cause he/she
>spews. Folks just ignore, or worse come to oppose, his cause because of
>the delivery method.
>2 cents....

Just 2 cents more from Arch Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 21:18:59 CST

Original text of this message