Any $0 p/m plans out there?

>
>>>> The Gmail spam filter catches 99.9% of the spam sent to
>>>> [email protected] (and it gets hundreds a day),
>>>> and has only ever wrongly spam-filtered a single solitary
>>>> email in its entire time (an edition of Crikey, strangely enough).
>
>>> OK, I'll try it, thanks.
>
>> Sorry Rod, but in nearly 10 years, this is the first time I have seen you
>> thank anyone.
>
> You need to get out more.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...hors=rod+speed


You may be right about getting out Rod. BUT, the link you sent only listed
you as saying thanks back in 2001

---

› See More: Any $0 p/m plans out there?

two bob <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> The Gmail spam filter catches 99.9% of the spam sent to
>>>>> [email protected] (and it gets hundreds a day),
>>>>> and has only ever wrongly spam-filtered a single solitary
>>>>> email in its entire time (an edition of Crikey, strangely enough).

>>>> OK, I'll try it, thanks.

>>> Sorry Rod, but in nearly 10 years, this is the first time I have seen
>>> you thank anyone.

>> You need to get out more.

>> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...hors=rod+speed

> You may be right about getting out Rod.

No may be about it.

> BUT, the link you sent only listed you as saying thanks back in 2001

Wrong, as always.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....5654ca650e18fa
And there are plenty more too.

Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>> I have two Yahoo! webmail accounts (mainly relating to
>>> internet forum participation, and it best works with a proxy
>>> server to subvert webmail blocking), and I never get any spam,
>>> without having any sort of special anti-spam account, i.e.,
>>> http://www.yahoo.com.au

>> You clearly dont include the email address in your newsgroup posts.

>> I do.

> You clearly do not include your yahoo address.

I only changed that yesterday.

"Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Smyth <[email protected]> wrote
>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>>> I have two Yahoo! webmail accounts (mainly relating to
>>>> internet forum participation, and it best works with a proxy
>>>> server to subvert webmail blocking), and I never get any spam,
>>>> without having any sort of special anti-spam account, i.e.,
>>>> http://www.yahoo.com.au
>
>>> You clearly dont include the email address in your newsgroup posts.
>
>>> I do.
>
>> You clearly do not include your yahoo address.
>
> I only changed that yesterday.

Keep digging.

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, at 06:16:51 [GMT +1100] (06:16:51 Thursday, 2 February
2006 where I live) "Rod Speed" wrote:

> You need to get out more.

> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...hors=rod+speed

Roddles, as your Doctor, you asked me whether or not you should post that
link, I clearly said "NO".

Now look and what you have done to you legion of fans!

>
>>>>> OK, I'll try it, thanks.
>
>>>> Sorry Rod, but in nearly 10 years, this is the first time I have seen
>>>> you thank anyone.
>
>>> You need to get out more.
>
>>> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...hors=rod+speed
>
>> You may be right about getting out Rod.
>
> No may be about it.

You win, i'll take your advice and go out tonight. Maybe a bit of he'ing and
she'ing will do the world of good.

>
>> BUT, the link you sent only listed you as saying thanks back in 2001
>
> Wrong, as always.

I only commented on MY own observations over the past years. No insult
intended, just an observation.

>> You need to get out more.
>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q...hors=rod+speed
>
> Roddles, as your Doctor, you asked me whether or not you should post that
> link, I clearly said "NO".
>
> Now look and what you have done to you legion of fans!
>

lol

"two bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> The Gmail spam filter catches 99.9% of the spam sent to
> >> [email protected] (and it gets hundreds a day),
> >> and has only ever wrongly spam-filtered a single solitary
> >> email in its entire time (an edition of Crikey, strangely enough).
> >
> > OK, I'll try it, thanks.
>
> Sorry Rod, but in nearly 10 years, this is the first time I have seen you
> thank anyone.

Rod gives praise when its due, most of the time
>
>
>

[email protected] wrote:

> That's very strange. I have two Yahoo! webmail accounts (mainly
> relating to internet forum participation, and it best works with a
> proxy server to subvert webmail blocking), and I never get any spam,
> without having any sort of special anti-spam account, i.e.,
> http://www.yahoo.com.au

Or you can do what I do. Have a dedicated email address for use in
Usenet. In the filters if the "To:" field doesn't have your name in it,
then get it to dump those messages.

If a person has set up his email account correctly with a name and an
email address such as MJT <[email protected]> then any messages posted
to me should have my name in the "to" field. If it doesn't, such as what
spams generally do (they usually only go on the address itself), then it
gets dumped. Works fine for me.

For mailing lists, and private emails I have another account that
doesn't have spams coming into it. For anything else that requires an
email address where I don't want a response, I just type in bull****.





--
"Today's payslip has more deductions than a Sherlock Holmes novel."

Horry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 15:53:22 +1100, MJT wrote:
>
>> Horry wrote:
>>
>>> The Gmail spam filter catches 99.9% of the spam sent to
>>> [email protected] (and it gets hundreds a day), and has only
>>> ever wrongly spam-filtered a single solitary email in its entire
>>> time (an edition of Crikey, strangely enough).
>>
>> Could you send me samples of your filters? The terminology they use,
>> to me, seems a bit confusing and vague. I'm not sure exactly how to
>> enter some filters due to the confusingly labeled form that it uses.
>
> The only filters I use are non-spam related. Gmail seems to catch
> all the spam of its own accord. One did manage to get through over
> the weekend, however, but it caught 176 and didn't wrongly filter
> any, so it's pretty impressive.
>
>>> I agree re Yahoo. My Yahoo inbox gets as much spam (if not more)
>>> than my spam folder, and things regularly get sorted into the spam
>>> folder that aren't in fact spam.
>>
>> I'm currently using Yahoo.com.au. It's doing a good job of stopping
>> the spam. I have only ONE filter installed. If a messages meets that
>> particular criteria, then it gets the nod. If it doesn't, it goes
>> into a spam folder (some messages that don't meet the criteria are
>> actually legit messages, but not many). So, instead of deleting
>> them, I merely have them moved to a spam folder so I can check it
>> once a week or so.

> Yeah, I check my Gmail spam folder about one a week. Never seen
> anything legit there (ie something that shouldn't be in the spam
> folder), other than that one edition of Crikey.

Its worked perfectly for me so far. In fact I'm a bit surprised at how
little
spam has showed up, just 3 so far. Not that surprising tho in many ways
since the yahoo one was around for over a decade or more now.

Horry <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horry <[email protected]> wrote
>>> MJT wrote
>>>> Horry wrote

>>>>> The Gmail spam filter catches 99.9% of the spam sent to
>>>>> [email protected] (and it gets hundreds a day), and has only
>>>>> ever wrongly spam-filtered a single solitary email in its entire
>>>>> time (an edition of Crikey, strangely enough).
>>>>
>>>> Could you send me samples of your filters? The terminology they
>>>> use, to me, seems a bit confusing and vague. I'm not sure exactly
>>>> how to enter some filters due to the confusingly labeled form that
>>>> it uses.
>>>
>>> The only filters I use are non-spam related. Gmail seems to catch
>>> all the spam of its own accord. One did manage to get through over
>>> the weekend, however, but it caught 176 and didn't wrongly filter
>>> any, so it's pretty impressive.
>>>
>>>>> I agree re Yahoo. My Yahoo inbox gets as much spam (if not more)
>>>>> than my spam folder, and things regularly get sorted into the spam
>>>>> folder that aren't in fact spam.
>>>>
>>>> I'm currently using Yahoo.com.au. It's doing a good job of stopping
>>>> the spam. I have only ONE filter installed. If a messages meets
>>>> that particular criteria, then it gets the nod. If it doesn't, it
>>>> goes into a spam folder (some messages that don't meet the
>>>> criteria are actually legit messages, but not many). So, instead
>>>> of deleting them, I merely have them moved to a spam folder so I
>>>> can check it once a week or so.
>>
>>> Yeah, I check my Gmail spam folder about one a week. Never seen
>>> anything legit there (ie something that shouldn't be in the spam
>>> folder), other than that one edition of Crikey.
>>
>> Its worked perfectly for me so far. In fact I'm a bit surprised at
>> how little
>> spam has showed up, just 3 so far. Not that surprising tho in many
>> ways since the yahoo one was around for over a decade or more now.

> Phishing spam seems to get through more often than
> normal spam, presumably because they're more "unique".

Yeah, that's certainly what gets past the yahoo filter quite a bit.

> There's a facility where you can notify Google of receipt of a phishing
> spam,
> so they can warning mark the emails of others, and filter to the spam
> folder.
> I usually notify them if I'm the first to do so (ie it's not already
> marked),
> if I remember, and they are onto it pretty quickly (usually within an
> hour).

The yahoo similar approach never appears to actually have much effect.