CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Colin D, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. Colin D

    Colin D Guest

    As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    groups, for a reason.

    I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    message flow.

    I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    should be banned.

    What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)

    Colin D.
     
    Colin D, Feb 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Colin D

    Nick Zentena Guest

    In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >
    > What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    > reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    >



    If it makes sense to cross post then cross post. OTOH think hard if it
    really makes sense. Most things don't.

    Nick

    --
    ---------------------------------------
    "Digital the new ice fishing"
    ---------------------------------------
     
    Nick Zentena, Feb 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
    > As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    > groups, for a reason.
    >
    > I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    > more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    > at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    > messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    > post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    > participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    > annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    > message flow.
    >
    > I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    > should be banned.
    >
    > What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    > reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    >
    > Colin D.


    I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
    header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
    then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to
    the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know
    if it will.
    This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
    email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for
    some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow
    shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents
    of the CIA, or some such thing.
    In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
    directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
    list, so that is what I do.
     
    William Graham, Feb 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Colin D wrote:

    > As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    > groups, for a reason.
    >
    > I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    > more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    > at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    > messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    > post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    > participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    > annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    > message flow.
    >
    > I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    > should be banned.
    >
    > What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    > reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    >


    Charter don't matter; those who wanna multi or x-post will do so and if
    you ask 'em to stop, some will become righteous and do it all the more.
    Others will X-post just to be irksome to those who haven't learned to
    filter or kill threads. Setting followups is logical, but also can set
    some folks off. Cross posting is infinitely better than multi posting in
    my book, but both are abused.

    The thing that may most delimit garbage is totally ignoring X-posted
    garbage, or at least trimming out groups that have zero relationship to
    photos.

    Now, as to putting Subject Lines in all caps......

    <s.>

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 28, 2006
    #4
  5. William Graham wrote:
    >>
    >>What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    >>reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)

    >
    > I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
    > header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
    > then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get to
    > the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't know
    > if it will.
    > This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
    > email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for
    > some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow
    > shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are agents
    > of the CIA, or some such thing.
    > In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
    > directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
    > list, so that is what I do.


    William:

    If you thought of the post in terms of not so much as going to the
    original sender, but to lots of people who read each of the groups,
    perhaps that'd motivate you to examine where it's going. It'd help a lot
    of people if you did. The OP should be following each of the groups to
    which he posts; therefor trimming out extraneous groups is highly valued
    by ..... the rest of the group who now don't have to read about politics
    in the photo groups, for example.

    cordially,

    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 28, 2006
    #5
  6. "William Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    > news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
    >> As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    >> groups, for a reason.
    >>
    >> I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    >> more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    >> at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    >> messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    >> post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    >> participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    >> annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    >> message flow.
    >>
    >> I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    >> should be banned.
    >>
    >> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    >> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    >>
    >> Colin D.

    >
    > I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
    > header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
    > then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get
    > to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I don't
    > know if it will.
    > This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
    > email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for
    > some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow
    > shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they are
    > agents of the CIA, or some such thing.
    > In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
    > directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
    > list, so that is what I do.


    There is very good reason to not post your email address to Usenet.
    Especially if you use a permanent long term email address. I generally keep
    my email addresses for many years. The junk unsolicited emails and Spam
    that are generated by just one Usenet posting are not worth it when one
    simply want to make a comment, and/or participate in a Usenet discussion,
    with absolutely zero requirement of personal email exchanges...
     
    Another Made Up Name, Feb 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Nick wrote on Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:18:01 -0500:

    NZ> In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Colin D
    NZ> <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
    ??>>
    ??>> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this?
    ??>> Should we not reply to these cross/multi posts? - except
    ??>> this one, of course {:)
    ??>>
    NZ> If it makes sense to cross post then cross post. OTOH
    NZ> think hard if it really makes sense. Most things don't.

    For myself, if I notice something is cross-posted, I ignore it.
    I wish it were possible to define a rule in OE that would do
    that automatically but such is not the case. More's the pity, I
    don't think I'd miss much!

    James Silverton.
     
    James Silverton, Feb 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Colin D

    Helen Guest

    "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
    > As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    > groups, for a reason.
    >


    And since you have such strong views, what do you think about SHOUTING?
     
    Helen, Feb 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Colin D

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:

    > What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    > reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)


    Crosspost if necessary; it usually isn't, but sometimes it makes sense.
    Choose the smallest possible number of groups. Crossposting to try to
    reach more people doesn't make sense; people *do* read more than one group.

    Multi-posting is stupid, bad, and should never be done. It's spam.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    >groups, for a reason.


    You have just demonstrated that cross-posting is *not*
    intrinsically wrong. It can, however, be abused: cross-posting
    to newsgroups where the message is inappropriate is an abuse and
    is worse than simply posting an off topic message to a single
    newsgroup.

    Multi-posting is inherently an abuse itself, whether the message
    is on topic or not. Multi-posting should be avoided.

    (And, note that topicality and netiquette are on topic in any
    newsgroup. Cross-posting to a small selection of related
    newsgroups is acceptable for such topics. Hence this thread is
    quite appropriate.)

    >I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    >more of the above groups.


    True, and it is an annoying abuse.

    >Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    >at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    >messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    >post in one group does not appear in the others.


    Broadening the base of discussion is *precisely* the purpose of
    cross-posting. It is not annoying *in* *itself*, and is a very
    reasonable thing to do _when_ _appropriate_.

    >If one is
    >participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    >annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    >message flow.
    >
    >I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    >should be banned.


    Wrong, and absolutely illogical! Multi-posting *is* banned!
    People do it anyway (rarely out of any intent to be annoying,
    but instead simply because they don't know the difference).

    Cross-posting is beneficial when used appropriately; like
    everything else in the world it can be abused, and that abuse
    *is* banned... but people do it anyway. Granted that a great
    deal of cross-posting abuse is in fact done with the very
    purpose of annoying others, but still even with cross-posting
    abuse it is mostly done in ignorance.

    >What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    >reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)


    The group charter is irrelevant.

    Netiquette is do not ever multi-post and do not ever post (or
    worse, cross-post) original articles to newsgroups where the
    message (topic) is not appropriate.

    Replying to multi-posted articles is hardly a problem, though I
    suppose one reasonable response would be to cross-post the
    response as appropriate.

    Replying to cross-posted articles confuses many people; in
    particular there is a problem with setting Followup-To headers.
    While it is *clearly* an abuse to start an inappropriately
    cross-posted thread, once it has been started if the thread is
    actually of any value at all there is no way to narrow the
    distribution without potentially cutting off some readers who
    are following the thread. In particular it is offensive to
    silently add a Followup-To header without announcing it in the
    text of the message, but even when announced it is poor form to
    assume that others should subscribe to the particular newsgroup
    selected by the sender.

    Trying to "ban" abuse is a waste of time and effort. The only
    recourse is effective use of filters/scoring/killfiles by
    individual users. Note that on some newsgroups it *would* make
    sense to just filter out everything that is cross-posted, though
    it might on occasion delete a useful article. But generally
    that is overkill because it will delete some useful articles.

    Use of a "score" system, where a number of characteristics are
    heuristically evaluated to form a decision that passes or fails
    any given message is much preferred, and particularly so when it
    is easy to manually manipulate it to add particular authors and
    threads. Another nice feature is killing any thread that is
    cross-posted to certain specific newsgroups (for example, to any
    political discussion newsgroup).

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 28, 2006
    #10
  11. From: "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1>

    | As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    | groups, for a reason.
    |
    | I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    | more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    | at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    | messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    | post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    | participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    | annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    | message flow.
    |
    | I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    | should be banned.
    |
    | What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    | reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    |
    | Colin D.

    Always Cross-Post. This way all News Groups gather the same responses rather than different
    groups getting different responses. This way ALL benefit. just make sure that you are not
    excessively Cross-Posting and only Cross-Post to relevant, On Topic, News Groups.


    --
    Dave
    http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
    http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
     
    David H. Lipman, Feb 28, 2006
    #11
  12. "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
    : As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    : groups, for a reason.
    :
    : I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    : more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    : at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    : messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    : post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    : participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    : annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    : message flow.
    :
    : I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    : should be banned.
    :
    : What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    : reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    :
    : Colin D.
    According to Australia's largest Internet provider:
    Posting to 2 groups is permitted. Posting to more than 2 groups is not
    condoned.
    People who actually bother to abide by the laws and rules or their ISP (all
    three of us), probably read this as absolute and make multiple posts to
    avoid breaking the rules.

    As much as it gets up people's noses, multi posting will continue just as
    long as you can't cross post to more than 2 groups and stay inside the
    rules.
     
    Tropical Treat, Mar 1, 2006
    #12
  13. Colin D

    Hunt Guest

    In article <4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1>, ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1
    says...
    >
    >As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    >groups, for a reason.
    >
    >I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    >more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    >at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    >messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    >post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    >participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    >annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    >message flow.
    >
    >I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    >should be banned.
    >
    >What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    >reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    >
    >Colin D.


    Colin, I disagree, when it comes to X-Posting. If an article/question is
    APPROPRIATE [emphasis mine] for multiple NGs, then I urge posters to X-Post to
    those that apply. First, not all servers carry all NGs. Second, subscribers
    might not read all groups. If an article is X-Posted, all of the replies will
    follow the article, regardless of which NG they come from. It should also save
    the OP time, by checking his/her article in one, and seeing all of the answers
    to it.

    With the two main Photoshop NGs, I encourage posters to X-Post to both, rather
    than multi-post for the above reasons.

    Hunt

    PS, I trimmed the X-Post Newsgroups, as this particular server doesn't have
    one in your list.
     
    Hunt, Mar 1, 2006
    #13
  14. "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > William Graham wrote:
    >>>
    >>>What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    >>>reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)

    >>
    >> I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
    >> header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
    >> then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get
    >> to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I
    >> don't know if it will.
    >> This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
    >> email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and
    >> for some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are
    >> somehow shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they
    >> are agents of the CIA, or some such thing.
    >> In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
    >> directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
    >> list, so that is what I do.

    >
    > William:
    >
    > If you thought of the post in terms of not so much as going to the
    > original sender, but to lots of people who read each of the groups,
    > perhaps that'd motivate you to examine where it's going. It'd help a lot
    > of people if you did. The OP should be following each of the groups to
    > which he posts; therefor trimming out extraneous groups is highly valued
    > by ..... the rest of the group who now don't have to read about politics
    > in the photo groups, for example.
    >
    > cordially,
    >
    > john mcwilliams


    Of course. But if I am trying to reach the original poster, then what choice
    do I have? The only way to be sure of that, is to send my answer to all the
    groups on the header. Now, if you are suggesting that I don't answer cross
    posted emails at all, then yes.....I could do that. And, in many cases I
    don't answer such posts. But it does impose quite a restriction on me to
    have to check out the headers of every post. The best thing to do would be
    to find a program that automatically eliminates all cross posted messages,
    so I wouldn't even read them to begin with. I don't know of any such
    program, or how to do this with the software I have, which is Outlook
    Express for Windows XP.
     
    William Graham, Mar 1, 2006
    #14
  15. "Another Made Up Name" <> wrote in message
    news:uJ3Nf.2342$DT.1389@trnddc06...
    >
    > "William Graham" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    >> news:4404BD27.EC969C53@killspam.127.0.0.1...
    >>> As you can see from the header, this post is cross-posted to four
    >>> groups, for a reason.
    >>>
    >>> I am seeing an increasing number of posts being multi-posted in two or
    >>> more of the above groups. Cross-posting is itself annoying enough, but
    >>> at least the contributors appear in all groups, whereas multi-posted
    >>> messages have different replies according to the particular group, and a
    >>> post in one group does not appear in the others. If one is
    >>> participating in a multi-posted group, it gets tedious as well as
    >>> annoying to find the same post in each group just to stay with the
    >>> message flow.
    >>>
    >>> I think multi- and cross-posting is a shot-gun approach to posting and
    >>> should be banned.
    >>>
    >>> What's the netiquette or group charter position on this? Should we not
    >>> reply to these cross/multi posts? - except this one, of course {:)
    >>>
    >>> Colin D.

    >>
    >> I can only speak for myself, but this is what I do. - I don't look at the
    >> header at all. If a post interests me enough such that I compose a reply,
    >> then I make my reply, and simply click on, "send". I presume it will get
    >> to the original poster. Should I eliminate any of the groups, then I
    >> don't know if it will.
    >> This could be eliminated if everyone posted under a real, legitimate
    >> email address as I do. Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and
    >> for some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are
    >> somehow shrouded in mystery. Perhaps these people like to think that they
    >> are agents of the CIA, or some such thing.
    >> In any case, since I can't post to the originator of the message
    >> directly, I have little choice but to send my post to every group on his
    >> list, so that is what I do.

    >
    > There is very good reason to not post your email address to Usenet.
    > Especially if you use a permanent long term email address. I generally
    > keep my email addresses for many years. The junk unsolicited emails and
    > Spam that are generated by just one Usenet posting are not worth it when
    > one simply want to make a comment, and/or participate in a Usenet
    > discussion, with absolutely zero requirement of personal email
    > exchanges...
    >

    I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now, and I have no
    problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get every day.....It
    takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess everyone considers such
    things to be of different importance, but to me, posting under my real name
    and address is much more important than to let a 5 minute job interfere with
    it.
    For one thing, most of those two dozen spam messages are my own fault,
    and did not come because I was using my real email address on newsgroups. -
    They came about because I am going to URL's all the time trying to gather
    information on different subjects, and many of these URL's collect my email
    address and sell/give it to others who then try to sell stuff to me over the
    email system. But I don't care. I can be walking down the street, and some
    stranger on the other side of the street can yell, "Hey, you!! Would you
    like to buy my car?!" All I have to do is say, "No!", or shake my head, or
    just ignore him. He has a perfect right to approach me, and I certainly am
    not going to hide my head in the sand for the rest of my life because of
    that possibility. Also, my regular, "snail mail" box is chocked full of such
    spam every day, and I can't do anything about that, either.
    I guess it just depends on the kind of person you are. I am more
    gregarious than most.
     
    William Graham, Mar 1, 2006
    #15
  16. Colin D

    Battleax Guest

    "William Graham" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    snip

    > I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now, and I have
    > no problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get every
    > day.....It takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess everyone
    > considers such things to be of different importance, but to me, posting
    > under my real name and address is much more important than to let a 5
    > minute job interfere with it.

    snip


    Using your valid email address increases the likelihood that some news group
    poster will email you personally concerning a newsgroup discussion. This is
    especially creepy.
     
    Battleax, Mar 1, 2006
    #16
  17. "Battleax" <> wrote:
    >"William Graham" <> wrote:
    >> I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now, and I have
    >> no problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get every
    >> day.....It takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess everyone


    I find the idea that it takes anyone 5 minutes to dump 20-30
    emails astounding. If it took me longer than 10-15 seconds...
    something would need fixing!

    >> considers such things to be of different importance, but to me, posting
    >> under my real name and address is much more important than to let a 5
    >> minute job interfere with it.

    >snip
    >
    >Using your valid email address increases the likelihood that some news group
    >poster will email you personally concerning a newsgroup discussion. This is
    >especially creepy.


    Why is that creepy? The idea that you would post something that
    you wouldn't discuss in email is creepy!

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 1, 2006
    #17
  18. (Hunt) wrote:
    >
    >Colin, I disagree, when it comes to X-Posting. If an article/question is
    >APPROPRIATE [emphasis mine] for multiple NGs, then I urge posters to X-Post to

    ....

    >PS, I trimmed the X-Post Newsgroups, as this particular server doesn't have
    >one in your list.


    Which more or less chucked your entire discussion!

    Why not 1) remove that one group, and/or 2) shift to a server
    that will accept cross-posts to groups that it does not carry
    (and complain loudly about the ridiculous limitation to the
    admin people at the server which rejects such articles).

    As it is, you've cut yourself off from the majority of people
    following this thread...

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 1, 2006
    #18
  19. "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Battleax" <> wrote:
    >>"William Graham" <> wrote:
    >>> I have been using my real email address for over 10 years now, and I
    >>> have
    >>> no problem eliminating the two dozen or so spam messages I get every
    >>> day.....It takes me all of 5 minutes or less......I guess everyone

    >
    > I find the idea that it takes anyone 5 minutes to dump 20-30
    > emails astounding. If it took me longer than 10-15 seconds...
    > something would need fixing!


    Well, I have an "after market" program called "Qurb" that separates out all
    the spam, and sure, I can dump all these in 10 seconds or so....The problem
    is, sometimes Qurb screws up, and it separates out something that I need to
    read.....Usually a message about something I have ordered on line, that Qurb
    can't tell is important to me. So, I peruse all the Qurb messages a bit more
    than one normally would......Most are obvious deletes, but a few are worthy
    of closer inspection.
    The same thing is true of my snail mail. The spammers are very cleaver
    at making the envelopes look like government checks, or personal mail, or
    something that is, "Important", so I pretty well have to open all the
    envelopes, or at least 50% of them. A couple of years ago, I got two checks
    from a drug company that totaled about $500. I threw them away, because they
    looked just like spam mail.....It was no end of trouble getting the company
    to remake those checks.....
     
    William Graham, Mar 1, 2006
    #19
  20. Colin D

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Battleax <> wrote:

    > Using your valid email address increases the likelihood that some news group
    > poster will email you personally concerning a newsgroup discussion. This is
    > especially creepy.


    It's kind of creepy that you consider that creepy.

    Real name; real address; more than a thousand spam emails per day; still doing
    it after all these years.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Mar 1, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jos Laarhoven

    cross-posting?

    Jos Laarhoven, Nov 6, 2004, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    579
    Caploc
    Nov 6, 2004
  2. Next

    Cross posting Etiquette

    Next, May 20, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    519
  3. hellrazor
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    464
    ^Hellrazor^
    Jul 17, 2004
  4. john w brown

    Cross Posting

    john w brown, Aug 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    531
    Jim Scott
    Aug 9, 2004
  5. Mr Floppy

    Re: cross posting

    Mr Floppy, Mar 24, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    488
    Apolinary Prokopek
    Dec 19, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page