As a follow on I notice the mood and topic range on TT has reverted back to moderation mode. (Check out TT archives pre unmoderated announcement then immediately after and you'll see what I mean.)
Jan then posted a reply I made to Michael Cunningham regarding Firewalls and Spam elimination.
From:
"Jan" <anybody@a...>
Date:
Tue Jul 1, 2003 10:19 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Spam
Norton AntiVirus is an excellent
program. So are certain parts of Norton Internet Security. I especially
enjoy the Ad blocking feature. However, the Spam blocking feature is IMO
a piece of sh*t. NIS may flag a message as spam even if I have declared
it as "not spam" in the advanced section; there
is no way to prioritize you own rules
and/or override the NIS defaults, as they are store internally in NIS.
As long as I used NIS, I was forced to check all flagged spam to be
certain I didn't lose any messages.
AT&T has an excellent spam filter which stops ~95% of the spam, and has
so far only incorrectly stopped one message so far that I know of. That
mail did contain the f***-word, so it did what it was supposed to do. My
local ISP only uses NIS as their spam blocking feature, and given my own
experiences, I had to find another solution. MailWasher Pro is separate
from the mail program, so it makes things a little more complicated by
filtering mail before receiving them, but it is worth it.
Bouncing messages does not remove the spam problem, but it seems to have
reduced it somewhat.
Regards,
Jan
----- Original Message -----
From: "angelisle2003" <angelisle2003@y...>
To: <tt-watch@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 23:17
Subject: [tt-watch] Re: Spam (Was: Crop Circles)
Norton Internet Security combined with Norton Antivirus is excellent
too. Not only have you got a solid Firewall but they check all incoming
e-mail for viruses and delete anything considered spam. You can even add
your own offending e-mail addresses and subject line definitions too. I
used to get loads, now I see none. Brian (Angel Isle)
[Now remember I replied to Michael yet he now gives us his own opinion. Note "his" opinion not that anyone asked for it and also remember I'm being moderated again so can't possibly answer "his" post. I thought I'd try a little test and replied back at 14.13pm. See below:]
------o------
Not surprisingly when it arrived
it turned up edited. A fine example of "fair, unbiased and none personal
moderation.
From: "angelisle2003"
<angelisle2003@y...>
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 4:24 pm
Subject: Re: Spam
I have the 2003 edition and it works fine for me, especially when
combined with the Outlook Express features. Each to his/her own
though. There's plenty of Free and Shareware programs out there
Michael that do equally good jobs. You could try a search, that's
how I found my first stuff.
Brian (Angel Isle)
------o------
You will Note that the last part of my message has been edited and when I looked
sure enough:
From angelisle2003@y... Tue Jul 01 10:08:57 2003
Return-Path: <angelisle2003@y...>
Received: (qmail 63557 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 17:08:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218)
by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jul 2003 17:08:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.64)
by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 17:08:56 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: angelisle2003@y...
Received: from [66.218.67.168] by n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01
Jul 2003 17:08:42 -0000
X-Sender: angelisle2003@y...
X-Apparently-To: tt-watch@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 34040 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2003 15:25:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216)
by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jul 2003 15:25:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.65)
by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jul 2003 15:25:00 -0000
Received: from [66.218.67.171] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 01
Jul 2003 15:24:48 -0000
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:24:16 -0000
To: tt-watch@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Spam
Message-ID: <bds930+nlnr@e...>
In-Reply-To: <000b01c33fc6$a008ed80$94aa6a20@M...>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 2291
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "angelisle2003" <angelisle2003@y...>
X-Originating-IP: 81.152.147.119
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=151431769
X-Yahoo-Profile: angelisle2003
X-eGroups-Edited-By: anybody1450 <anybody@a...>
X-eGroups-Approved-By: anybody1450 <anybody@a...> via web; 01 Jul 2003
17:08:40 -0000
It has been edited by Jan no less, well blow me down, I'd never have guessed and with the subtlety of a jackboot. So it would seem I'm on moderation and not banned after all, well whoop-de-do. (It's Ok "gentlemen" I've no intention of posting anything so that you all can approve or disapprove, besides if I've anything really important to say I can always use one of many identities that I've already been using to post on separate ISP's... and no not the two spare "nicks" you think you've found. I only wanted to test your word and it seems as always they amount to nought. So if you really want to stop them you'll have to go back to moderating every post as you did before, good luck you'll need it. BTW I hope you realise that most of the membership now comprise sci-astro multiple identities, set up by them so that when they get banned they can return as another till that one gets turned off etc, etc, most of which have been there since the increase in membership began and I know this how? By talking to sci-astro members who have admitted as much. Wouldn't it be ironic if the majority now comprise so called "debunkers" identities over true believers. Hope to God Nancy never calls for another vote or you all might find yourselves out of a job.)
Free and democratic, or a closed dictate. Now be honest what do you think?
Stay tuned the sage is bound to continue.....