spam percentage
in [Fortran]
|
From: Robert Miles on 13 Apr 2010 21:21 "Craig Powers" <craig.powers(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:hq2onk$608$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > carolus wrote: >> On 4/12/2010 11:42 AM, Craig Powers wrote: >>> 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.) >> >> If I could use the Thunderbird Bayesian filter to eliminate unwanted >> content, or the explicit filter rules to eliminate messages with "buy" or >> "cheap" in the subject line, it would help. > > You ought to be able to do the latter right now. I believe that's part of > the basic message filtering functionality, which applies to newsgroup > messages. > It could depend on whether the filtering occurs before or after the translation between different character sets. Most of the current batch of high volume spammers make frequent use of alternate character sets in the Subject: line, choosing from the wide variety that happen to contain all the characters used in English but also add graphics characters and usually also characters needed in some language other than English. Never mind if they seldom actually use characters intended for other languages. If the filtering occurs before the character translation, it will seldom work for most of the current spam. The Windows Mail program that comes with Windows Vista now seems to be able to handle Subject: line filtering correctly even in such cases, at the cost of much more use of memory (over 2 GB for me under 32-bit Vista, and close to 6 GB under 64-bit Vista). However, there seems to be some problem in either the header lines reporting or the email sending portion, which allows some of the headers using alternate character sets in the Subject: line to turn off end-of-line character handling. Earlier in this thread, I forgot to mention that I am now in the process of reporting most of the spam in several newsgroups, including this one. However, I did not notice the errors caused by the Subject line problems in time to be sure that I reported all the spam from Google Groups send since the start of last December correctly or save it for more tries. As usual, DON'T expect fast results from reporting spam to Google Groups; expect it to take at least a few weeks before anything is done, and DON'T expect the results to include any email replies from Google Groups to you. However, if your newsgroups provider accepts cancel messages from Google Groups (not all do), you'll probably start seeing results for the reported messages a few weeks after you report them. If your newsreader includes the ability to filter messages based of words, phrases, and character strings in the body of the message, try setting up some filtering to discard all the messages that mention the web sites the spammers are advertising; it's costlier for spammers to change those than most other parts of the message. Windows Mail includes some capability to do that, but not automatically. Don't include the web page on that site - it's easier to change those. Robert Miles
From: Robert Miles on 13 Apr 2010 21:31 "Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <helbig(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message news:hpvvfb$4l1$1(a)online.de... > In article > <8628221c-4f10-4829-b389-a5fe8cef4019(a)j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> writes: > >> 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? > > Are the spam messages (which seem to be only in c.l.f of the groups I > follow) posted THROUGH the Google Groups interface? > At least 95% of those I see have headers indicating they were posted that way. Although it's possible to produce fake headers indicating which newsgroup provider it was posted from, doing that seems to attract much more attention from the newsgroups providers near the start of the flow of those messages, which usually start shutting down any accounts used within the next day of so. However, the most active spammers seem to be aiming mainly for the highest volume newsgroups, and considering even c.l.f rather marginal for being a high enough volume. Are the other newsgroups you follow all lower volume than c.l.f? Robert Miles
From: Aris on 14 Apr 2010 04:42 Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> 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. Google tells me there have been 2356 posts this year in c.l.f., that is about 23 per day. If I go 10 pages back in the history on google, I arrive at February the 24th. Count 30 posts per page, consider them all spam for convenience, that is about 6 posts of spam per day. By far no 99%. > 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.
From: Terence on 14 Apr 2010 07:47 On Apr 14, 6:42 pm, Aris <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > Terence <tbwri...(a)cantv.net> 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. > > Google tells me there have been 2356 posts this year in c.l.f., that is > about 23 per day. If I go 10 pages back in the history on google, I > arrive at February the 24th. Count 30 posts per page, consider them all > spam for convenience, that is about 6 posts of spam per day. > By far no 99%. > I was accurate when I said "NOW". Opening c.l.f. and finding 1 genuine contribution from the first 100 entries caused my posting that day. Mind you, I stopped after 100; a larger sample would, I agree, have given a more optimistic view, but it DOES seem the volume is growing - and most from a very samll number of (hired) posters "working" from home... I think the replies have been very thoughtful and probably helpful to those who now can reduce the ratio of unwanted to interesting messages. I DO filter my e-mail very successfully and wish I had access to a similar mechanism in my route to c.l.f. Oh! and my postings overall (10 main groups) refer to "SPAM" very few times in all, (and almost all here), mainly because only one other group of interest to me has any at all!
From: Aris Tofanis on 14 Apr 2010 08:11
Terence <tbwright(a)cantv.net> wrote: > On Apr 14, 6:42=A0pm, Aris <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> Terence <tbwri...(a)cantv.net> 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. >> >> Google tells me there have been 2356 posts this year in c.l.f., that is >> about 23 per day. If I go 10 pages back in the history on google, I >> arrive at February the 24th. Count 30 posts per page, consider them all >> spam for convenience, that is about 6 posts of spam per day. >> By far no 99%. >> > > I was accurate when I said "NOW". > Opening c.l.f. and finding 1 genuine contribution from the first 100 > entries caused my posting that day. You are confusing posts with topics. > Mind you, I stopped after 100; a > larger sample would, I agree, have given a more optimistic view, but > it DOES seem the volume is growing - and most from a very samll number > of (hired) posters "working" from home... > > I think the replies have been very thoughtful and probably helpful to > those who now can reduce the ratio of unwanted to interesting > messages. I DO filter my e-mail very successfully and wish I had > access to a similar mechanism in my route to c.l.f. > Oh! and my postings overall (10 main groups) refer to "SPAM" very few > times in all, (and almost all here), mainly because only one other > group of interest to me has any at all! |