OT: Replying to SPAM

[vey]

Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
to screen out obvious SPAM.
Therefore, most people will never even see most SPAM.

Someone that subscribes to a substandard news server will see the SPAM
that no one else sees. For reasons that I don't understand, they decide
to get "smart" and reply to the SPAM. I guess that they think everyone
can see it.

Because they are not coming from a known spamming server, the reply
isn't filtered out and everyone gets to "enjoy" the "smart" remarks and
the SPAM.

Without the replies, most people would be blissfully unaware that anyone
had spammed the NG at all since they never even saw the original post.

So, you know who you are, please refrain from replying to the spam. It's
not helping anything and only makes a bad situation worse.

Thank you.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 18, 8:10 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
> to screen out obvious SPAM.
> Therefore, most people will never even see most SPAM.
>
> Someone that subscribes to a substandard news server will see the SPAM
> that no one else sees. For reasons that I don't understand, they decide
> to get "smart" and reply to the SPAM. I guess that they think everyone
> can see it.
>
> Because they are not coming from a known spamming server, the reply
> isn't filtered out and everyone gets to "enjoy" the "smart" remarks and
> the SPAM.
>
> Without the replies, most people would be blissfully unaware that anyone
> had spammed the NG at all since they never even saw the original post.
>
> So, you know who you are, please refrain from replying to the spam. It's
> not helping anything and only makes a bad situation worse.
>
> Thank you.


The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".

[Tim McNamara]

In article <13k1s4ne0tfclb1@corp.supernews.com>,
vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote:

> Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the
> ability to screen out obvious SPAM. Therefore, most people will never
> even see most SPAM.
>
> Someone that subscribes to a substandard news server will see the
> SPAM that no one else sees. For reasons that I don't understand, they
> decide to get "smart" and reply to the SPAM. I guess that they think
> everyone can see it.
>
> Because they are not coming from a known spamming server, the reply
> isn't filtered out and everyone gets to "enjoy" the "smart" remarks
> and the SPAM.
>
> Without the replies, most people would be blissfully unaware that
> anyone had spammed the NG at all since they never even saw the
> original post.
>
> So, you know who you are, please refrain from replying to the spam.
> It's not helping anything and only makes a bad situation worse.
>
> Thank you.

Take some responsibility for yourself and don't read those threads.
Then they won't bother you. Personally, I don't want some news server
manager deciding what messages I can or can't see. I set my own spam
filters for that based on my criteria.

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:10:47 -0500, vey <junker@ericvey.com> may have
said:

>Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
>to screen out obvious SPAM.

Significant nitpick:

SPAM is a tasty canned meat product from Hormel, while spam is an
internet nuisance and hazard to online activities. Learn the
difference.


--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[Tom Sherman]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
> to screen out obvious SPAM.
> Therefore, most people will never even see most SPAM.
>
> Someone that subscribes to a substandard news server will see the SPAM
> that no one else sees. For reasons that I don't understand, they decide
> to get "smart" and reply to the SPAM. I guess that they think everyone
> can see it.
>
> Because they are not coming from a known spamming server, the reply
> isn't filtered out and everyone gets to "enjoy" the "smart" remarks and
> the SPAM.
>
> Without the replies, most people would be blissfully unaware that anyone
> had spammed the NG at all since they never even saw the original post.
>
> So, you know who you are, please refrain from replying to the spam. It's
> not helping anything and only makes a bad situation worse.
>
> Thank you.

The key is to remove any links from the SPAM when making the smart reply.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

[vey]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".

The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>
> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
> the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.

The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
Panties". ;-)

[vey]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>>> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
>> the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>
> The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
> Panties". ;-)
>

That one saved you from the "plonk" bucket. Lessee, not may people in
there now from this group. Dolan is in there.

[still just me]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:35:20 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>> > The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>>
>> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
>> the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>
>The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
>Panties". ;-)

Is this thread SPAM or can I reply to it?

[landotter]

On Nov 18, 8:35 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > > The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>
> > The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
> > the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>
> The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
> Panties". ;-)

Knickers in a twist!

Well, I do have to say one of the lovely things about Google Groups is
that once a person is killfiled with Penney's GG killer, the subthread
goes. As much as I loved the newsreader Pan (Agent clone), I don't
miss keeping up with four different places I might log in. ;-) It
doesn't store the killfile remotely, but all your other settings are
consistent.

http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 18, 8:46 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> >>> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
> >> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
> >> the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>
> > The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
> > Panties". ;-)
>
> That one saved you from the "plonk" bucket

Don't do me any favors; "plonk" away!


>. Lessee, not may people in
> there now from this group. Dolan is in there.

[vey]

still just me wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:35:20 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>
>>>> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>>> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
>>> the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>> The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
>> Panties". ;-)
>
> Is this thread SPAM or can I reply to it?

Why would you want to reply to SPAM? Does it make you feel important? Do
you reply to the SPAM that hits your email inbox? Does it do any good?

[Tim McNamara]

In article <fhqu4k$jv5$1@news.datemas.de>, vey <junker@ericvey.com>
wrote:

> still just me wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:35:20 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
> >>> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that
> >>> doesn't know the difference between a polite request and impolite
> >>> "smart" comment.
> >> The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
> >> Panties". ;-)
> >
> > Is this thread SPAM or can I reply to it?
>
> Why would you want to reply to SPAM? Does it make you feel important?

Sometimes it's just funny. Grow a sense of humor about it, man, or
you'll just find Usenet a trial and tribulation.

[vey]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:

>
> Don't do me any favors; "plonk" away!

Plonking takes two clicks. You aren't worth the effort.

[still just me]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:10:15 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

>On Nov 18, 8:46 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> > On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> >> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>
>> >>> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>> >> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
>> >> the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>>
>> > The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
>> > Panties". ;-)
>>
>> That one saved you from the "plonk" bucket
>
>Don't do me any favors; "plonk" away!

The "plonkers" are really amusing... they act as if it's some sort of
massive penalty - as if the plonkie is thinking "oh no, this person I
disagree with isn't go to see my posts... maybe I should beg for
forgiveness and stay out of their kill file... their conversation is
_so_ important to me!". :-)

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Nov 18, 9:14 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 18, 8:35 pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
> > > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > > > The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
>
> > > The preceding message was brought to you from someone that doesn't know
> > > the difference between a polite request and impolite "smart" comment.
>
> > The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
> > Panties". ;-)
>
> Knickers in a twist!

"Netcops with Twisted Knickers"? Sounds about right.....

[still just me]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:59:49 -0600, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <fhqu4k$jv5$1@news.datemas.de>, vey <junker@ericvey.com>
>wrote:
>
>> still just me wrote:


>> >
>> > Is this thread SPAM or can I reply to it?
>>
>> Why would you want to reply to SPAM? Does it make you feel important?
>
>Sometimes it's just funny. Grow a sense of humor about it, man, or
>you'll just find Usenet a trial and tribulation.

My subtle point. But, he missed it.

If I can bring a smile to just one person a day, my life will be
complete (Especially if 25% of those smiles are in person from pretty
girls and it leads to conversation).

[Michael Press]

In article
<timmcn-34D318.22594918112007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <fhqu4k$jv5$1@news.datemas.de>, vey <junker@ericvey.com>
> wrote:
>
> > still just me wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:35:20 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> > > <bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Nov 18, 8:26 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> > >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> The preceding message was brought to you by "NetCops Unlimited".
> > >>> The preceding message was brought to you from someone that
> > >>> doesn't know the difference between a polite request and impolite
> > >>> "smart" comment.
> > >> The preceding message brought to you by "Netcops with Wadded
> > >> Panties". ;-)
> > >
> > > Is this thread SPAM or can I reply to it?
> >
> > Why would you want to reply to SPAM? Does it make you feel important?
>
> Sometimes it's just funny. Grow a sense of humor about it, man, or
> you'll just find Usenet a trial and tribulation.

If he visits usenet for a source of trial and tribulation,
then why attempt to persuade him to do otherwise?

--
Michael Press

[landotter]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:10:47 -0500, vey <junker@ericvey.com> may have
> said:
>
> >Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
> >to screen out obvious SPAM.
>
> Significant nitpick:
>
> SPAM is a tasty canned meat product from Hormel, while spam is an
> internet nuisance and hazard to online activities. Learn the
> difference.
>

You mean it's not a meaty Treet?

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:26:49 -0800 (PST), landotter
<landotter@gmail.com> may have said:

>
>
>Werehatrack wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:10:47 -0500, vey <junker@ericvey.com> may have
>> said:
>>
>> >Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
>> >to screen out obvious SPAM.
>>
>> Significant nitpick:
>>
>> SPAM is a tasty canned meat product from Hormel, while spam is an
>> internet nuisance and hazard to online activities. Learn the
>> difference.
>>
>
>You mean it's not a meaty Treet?

Oh, ugh. Ever had that stuff? It makes SPAM look like a prime cut.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

[landotter]

On Nov 20, 1:48 pm, Werehatrack <raul...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:26:49 -0800 (PST), landotter
> <landot...@gmail.com> may have said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Werehatrack wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:10:47 -0500, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> may have
> >> said:
>
> >> >Most news servers, even a free one at news.datemas.de , has the ability
> >> >to screen out obvious SPAM.
>
> >> Significant nitpick:
>
> >> SPAM is a tasty canned meat product from Hormel, while spam is an
> >> internet nuisance and hazard to online activities. Learn the
> >> difference.
>
> >You mean it's not a meaty Treet?
>
> Oh, ugh. Ever had that stuff? It makes SPAM look like a prime cut.
>

Almost bought some the other day, as I saw it on the shelf and had a
good laugh. The contradiction between the name and the picture on the
can is great. TREET! It's so futuristic!

Now if ya got some brauschweiger, butter, sweet pickles, and
pumpernickel--I'm all over it.