"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom@65.204.18.192...
> At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author.

Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".

>
> I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break convention.
>
> -manfred

Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom@65.204.18.192...
>> At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
>> convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
>> the author and a valid email adress of the author.
>
> Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email
> address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".

I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two
spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years
ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good
an idea.

--
 Simen

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras@gmail.com> wrote in message news:op.uun3kgep1hx7vj@biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no...
> Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>
>> "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom@65.204.18.192...
>>> At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of the author and a valid email adress of the author.
>>
>> Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".
>
> I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good an idea.
>

I've tried a number of filters over the years, even popular and highly-respected ones, but never found one that didn't give me both false-positives and false-negatives. The way I do things now, despite having no filters, I also have no spam at all and (naturally) no valid messages accidentally being rejected. So I see the filters as little more than clumbsy bandage-appoach.

On Sat, 30 May 2009 00:26:02 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:

> "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:op.uun3kgep1hx7vj@biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no...
>> Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
>>
>>> "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom@65.204.18.192...
>>>> At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
>>>> convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
>>>> the author and a valid email adress of the author.
>>>
>>> Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email
>>> address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".
>>
>> I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two
>> spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years
>> ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good
>> an idea.
>>
>
> I've tried a number of filters over the years, even popular and
> highly-respected ones, but never found one that didn't give me both
> false-positives and false-negatives. The way I do things now, despite having
> no filters, I also have no spam at all and (naturally) no valid messages
> accidentally being rejected. So I see the filters as little more than
> clumbsy bandage-appoach.

Offline (stand-alone) filters can't stand up to filters maintained by a multi-billion-dollar company, powered by instant user feedback and analysis from millions of accounts (I'm talking about the "mark as (not) spam" buttons). Did you know that Gmail actually scans image attachments with OCR? (The Viagra spammers started sending e-mails with some markov-chain-generated body and the actual advertisement on a generated picture).

A few years ago I was also paranoid about leaving my e-mail address in plain text on the web, until I noticed that D's Bugzilla doesn't attempt to hide them (I even filed a ticket about this, which got closed a year later or so). Today I get over 1000 spam e-mails per month, out of which about one or two gets past the filter.

By the way, you can set up Gmail to retrieve mail from your other inbox (assuming you don't use some webmail-only service like Yahoo) and pass it through its spam filter.

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow@gmail.com

Vladimir Panteleev Wrote:

> By the way, you can set up Gmail to retrieve mail from your other inbox (assuming you don't use some webmail-only service like Yahoo) and pass it through its spam filter.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>   Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow@gmail.com

I'd be interested to know if you got my email.

Steve

On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:55:34 +0300, Steve Teale <steve.teale@britseyeview.com> wrote:

> I'd be interested to know if you got my email.

I got it, because Gmail's hyper-sophisticated AI recognized it was a joke and not genuine spam :D

Seriously though, a spam filter that makes decisions solely on the e-mail's content can only get so good. Matching e-mails against huge databases of previous records and user decisions put Gmail's filter above the average corporate one. So, you should try sending that e-mail to a few hundred thousand addresses and see if it'll work then :)

-- 
Best regards,
 Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow@gmail.com