We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
Question: Is Usenet support necessary any longer? I've heard multiple
reports of it being dropped by ISPs. -- I really know very little
about the subject, but I'm just wondering if supporting Usenet is out-
moded/out-dated? Perhaps the more precise question to ask is: Does
anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the mailing
list?
T.
Trans wrote:
We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
The spam is slightly irritating. If you're reading this from the mailing list, I'd guess there are already plenty of ways you can filter the spam out yourself. I expect some filtering could be set up on the gateway, but I'm not offering to do it so I won't expect someone else to.
Question: Is Usenet support necessary any longer? I've heard multiple
reports of it being dropped by ISPs. -- I really know very little
about the subject, but I'm just wondering if supporting Usenet is out-
moded/out-dated?
No. It's still supported by my ISP (the 2nd largest in the UK, ~4m subscribers), and my academic institution.
Perhaps the more precise question to ask is: Does
anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the mailing
list?
No-one *actually needs* it. For that matter, we don't need the mailing list either; we could just have a web forum. With built-in emoticons 
But Usenet is, to me, a much preferable way to interact with this group. A high volume list works better as a "pull" technology (Usenet/Web) than a "push" one (Email), IMO.
a
I've always used comp.lang.ruby . I find it much more convenient than
email.
Regards,
Jeremy Henty
On 2008-09-29, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
Does anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the
mailing list?
Trans wrote:
We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
Question: Is Usenet support necessary any longer? I've heard multiple
reports of it being dropped by ISPs. -- I really know very little
about the subject, but I'm just wondering if supporting Usenet is out-
moded/out-dated? Perhaps the more precise question to ask is: Does
anyone actually need Usenet in order to interact with the mailing
list?T.
Personally I prefer using usenet as I don't have to worry about all the e-mail. I can download the headers when it is convenient for me and quickly scan them and read those of interest, much as I scan over all the spam postings. I could live with a mailing list, but would prefer not to, and will not participate in a web forum.
Fully agree. There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.
Alex, I fully agree.
Cheers
robert
2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <aff28@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
Trans wrote:
We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
The spam is slightly irritating. If you're reading this from the mailing
list, I'd guess there are already plenty of ways you can filter the spam out
yourself. I expect some filtering could be set up on the gateway, but I'm
not offering to do it so I won't expect someone else to.
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
Trans wrote:
We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
<snip>
There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.
Hmm Robert, might this not have something to do with our mail
providers, I indeed have to agree that gmail's spam filters are quite
effective, so that this does not seem to be a problem...
... for us.
However if others are complaining maybe they cannot filter that effectively.
Tom maybe you can provide us with more detailed info here?
Cheers
Robert
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <aff28@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
--
C'est véritablement utile puisque c'est joli.
Antoine de Saint Exupéry
Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.
Cheers
robert
On 29.09.2008 22:13, Robert Dober wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme > <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <aff28@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
Trans wrote:
We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
<snip>
There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.Hmm Robert, might this not have something to do with our mail
providers, I indeed have to agree that gmail's spam filters are quite
effective, so that this does not seem to be a problem...
.. for us.
However if others are complaining maybe they cannot filter that effectively
I manage the Google Group. So I make spam reports and delete messages
manually from the group archive as needed. I've seen approx. 1 to 2
SPAM message a day for a few weeks now, and one day there were 5. It's
not overwhelming (yet), but it is enough to be annoying.
I know it wouldn't be as convenient, but could we make it so that a
Usenet post could not come through the gateway unless the poster was a
member of the mailing list? (That's how it is with Google Groups.
Btw.)
T.
On Sep 29, 4:13 pm, "Robert Dober" <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Robert Klemme<shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 2008/9/29 Alex Fenton <af...@deleteme.cam.ac.uk>:
>> Trans wrote:>>> We need to do something about the SPAM coming through on Usenet.
<snip>
> There is not much spam (yet) so I would not want to
> waste more bandwidth on this. At the moment it seems there is more
> bandwidth wasted on spam discussion than on spam itself.Hmm Robert, might this not have something to do with our mail
providers, I indeed have to agree that gmail's spam filters are quite
effective, so that this does not seem to be a problem...
... for us.
However if others are complaining maybe they cannot filter that effectively.
Tom maybe you can provide us with more detailed info here?
I suspect that GMail whitelists mail from 'people' in your contacts
list. If you are like me you whatever mail llsts you subscribe to
added as contacts in order to easily post to them.
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from
c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Hi everyone, just started reading and finally have something to post on (that I won't make a fool out of myself saying)
While trying to join the ML just this last month I had some troubles when GMail marked my ruby-talk emails as spam. Just an observation I thought I might contribute.
Ryan 'jphr' Neufeld
On 29-Sep-08, at 4:04 PM, Robert Klemme wrote
Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.
Cheers
robert
---------------------------
visit me at hammerofcode.com
Just to provide another viewpoint, I disagree. (Caveat: I haven't
figured out (or tried to figure out) whether I can influence or control
gmail's spam filtering, so maybe I can make it better.)
My problem is too many false positives--emails that I want to receive
and have been dumped in the gmail spam "file".
I also suspect that google (like my impression of yahoo) email filtering
is based not simply on my decisions about what is spam and what is not,
but somehow on a group consensus of some sort. In yahoo, I find very
similar stuff marked spam one day and not the next (or vice versa),
when I've done nothing to influence that "decision".
Randy Kramer
On Monday 29 September 2008 05:04 pm, Robert Klemme wrote:
Last time I checked my GMail spam filter did not catch much spam from
c.l.r/ruby-talk. But, yes I agree, GMail's spam filter is excellent.
--
I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I created a video
instead.--with apologies to Cicero, et.al.