spam percentage
in [Fortran]
|
From: Tim Prince on 11 Apr 2010 14:01 On 4/11/2010 1:41 AM, Terence wrote: > I see, by count, that there are now 1 genuine forran postings per 3 > pages of titles. At 30 odd titles per page, that makes it close to a > 99% spam proportion.Anybody know how something can be done? > Or where to report in Google? Where I've never ever seen a reply in > the Help Forum? > Repeat: some readers cannot have a censored effective "newsreader" > solution. There's no realistic choice for most of us but to subscribe to a real news server. Of the last 18 c.l.f posts coming through news.individual.net, just 1 is spam (from Google, of course). I feel a degree of guilt by proximity to Google. Maybe people will cut back on use of gmail for legitimate purposes when they realize non-Google customers have no reliable means to separate spam from non-spam when it comes through Google servers. In practice, I've found it necessary to employ mail and news servers as remote physically as possible from Google. There is a reluctance to deal with neighbors. Distant filters do the best they can, and those who use Google must suffer the consequences of being lumped with the bad. I've seen no discussion of it, but (according to my observation) one of the present California governor's first acts was to disable state enforcement of anti-spam legislation, weak as it was. It did not offer to protect those who reside outside California. Possibly, the situation is analogous in Europe and with Terence's own provider, which tends to get filtered out wholesale. -- Tim Prince
From: Uno on 11 Apr 2010 20:04 Gordon Sande wrote: > On 2010-04-11 05:41:48 -0300, Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> said: > >> I see, by count, that there are now 1 genuine forran postings per 3 >> pages of titles. At 30 odd titles per page, that makes it close to a >> 99% spam proportion.Anybody know how something can be done? >> Or where to report in Google? Where I've never ever seen a reply in >> the Help Forum? >> Repeat: some readers cannot have a censored effective "newsreader" >> solution. > > Being curious I had my newsreader reload all of the posting in c.l.f > that were still available. They go back to December. I had expected > only a couple weeks. > > Anyway, there were 2420 postings. I used the sort by poster and scanned > by hand. The blocks of drug ads stood out so I marked then as read. > Real postings came in blocks so I only had to look at the boundaries. > Repeated this a couple more times and got down to 2018 postings. So > about 1/6 were spam which mostly comes in batches of around 20. And > there were still a few bogus conferences and posting from a few folks > who I skip over. > > I also noticed that Terrance had about two dozen postings and fully > 1/3 had spam in their title. > > My observation is that a real news service seems to not have that > much spam. The spam that arrives in batches is easy to spot. The small > amount remaining is not a burden and quite comparable to the Ada flame > wars and other newsgroup noise. A real newsreader makes it easy to skip > over the spam and noise that remains. > > My lesson is to avoid Google and hope that the folks who complain about > it would stop cluttering up the newsgroups. A real news service with a > real newsreader seems to solve the problem. And yes I have taken the bait > and am contributing to the problem. > > > > 48 hours ago, I used google groups to look at the responses I got to the thread I started. You can use google to find only the most recent threads, as there were about 20 ads for drugs till I got to the first topical original post, which was mine. I see none of this spam with NIN. I've decided to hate google for their role in screwing up free speech on usenet, a form of information pollution. They are now on my fox list: companies that will never see my money and whose advertised products I actively avoid when purchasing. -- Uno
From: Luka Djigas on 12 Apr 2010 08:57 On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:04:18 -0600, Uno <merrilljensen(a)q.com> wrote: >48 hours ago, I used google groups to look at the responses I got to the >thread I started. You can use google to find only the most recent >threads, as there were about 20 ads for drugs till I got to the first >topical original post, which was mine. I see none of this spam with NIN. > >I've decided to hate google for their role in screwing up free speech on >usenet, a form of information pollution. They are now on my fox list: >companies that will never see my money and whose advertised products I >actively avoid when purchasing. Oh, come on. Google isn't bad, per se. It's just that sometimes, even through good intentions, bad results can arise. I see nothing bad in their attempt for example, to allow us to search through usenet archives, just the opposite. But *they had to be aware* (if they aren't - then that's just lack of thinking ahead) that once you allow the usenet to be accessed worldwide, you will also have a worldwide amount of spam (huge). The thing about usenet, as we know it, is that its access points have always been local, restricted to universities, schools, academia and local isp's. In that way, spammers could be quickly dealt with. At worst, one server could be cut out from the rest, and spam problem solved. Google through it's "good intentions" made that impossible. Only they can solve it now, and that's a problem. Since they don't seem that interested n solving it. But, I agree with something; although I've always liked google (I was one of the first gmail/greader users and much else), I agree they're getting too "powerful" ... and I'm afraid once one has all that under his own control, they might start to disregard their users ... and turn into something like aol. -- Luka
From: carolus on 12 Apr 2010 18:33 On 4/11/2010 10:11 AM, A Watcher wrote: > > I use filters with my newsreader so I don't see most of the spam. What newsreader do you use? Thunderbird has pretty good filtering capability for email, but I can't get it to work with newsgroups.
From: Craig Powers on 12 Apr 2010 13:42
carolus wrote: > On 4/11/2010 10:11 AM, A Watcher wrote: >> >> I use filters with my newsreader so I don't see most of the spam. > > What newsreader do you use? Thunderbird has pretty good filtering > capability for email, but I can't get it to work with newsgroups. What problems are you having? There are two useful things that can be done; message filters will mark stuff as read, and "ignore thread" will knock an entire thread out of the listing entirely. Are you having problems with one or the other of those features? (I use the former for my regular poster killfile and the latter for hiding one-off spam messages that make it through onto Eternal September.) |