In article
<6b825564-8c9f-4e5a-8506-20f4e421d804@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauffer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On May 13, 11:42 am, Allen <al...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:> I notice the spam flood has
virtually
> > disappeared from the other four
> > > newsgroups I subscribe to. It only seems to continue on rpd.
> >
> > > I know on one of my groups someone took action somehow to convert
all
> > > of those spam message titles to the word "spam", so it may be that
> > > server administrators on host servers may have something to do with
> > > overcoming the flood. Don't know why it is continuing on rpd, but
it
> > > would be nice if this group somehow follows what is happening on
rest
> > > of Usenet.
> >
> > This subject has been covered several times lately. If you go to
Google
> > Groups (unfortunately, one of the worst offenders) you can see
probably
> > hundreds of suggestions on the subject. For starters, though, if you
> > will create filters for senders whose addresses contain gmail, google,
> > 126.com, 163.com or .cn, you will reduce the number greatly. I don't
> > know what news reader you use, but in Thunderbird I put the ones going
> > through Google in the filters for each individual group (in some
groups,
> > some valuable contributors use it) but I put 126, 163 and cn in the
> > filter for the entire news system. Good luck!
> > Allen
>
> But why do I not need to do any of this for the other four newsgroups
> I subscribe to?
All the <good> groups finally attract spammers because many people read
and post meaning the con artists have a broad audience and there will
always be one or two innocents who get taken in. A few years ago
soc.culture.british was an excellent group for banter between expat
Brits, now it's a spam trap for Muslim/Jew/Indian/Pakistani haters to
vent their nastiness. I filtered a lot for a while and eventually gave
up as I was spending more time filtering than actually searching for
<real> posts. Perhaps another group (rec.photos.digital or
rec.photo.digi???) may be necessary in future and leave these s***heads
to post to themselves
|
