(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.

Gordon · External Since: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 9

"Mike" <no.DeleteThis@where.man> wrote in message
news:no-CD803D.08402801112006@news.supernews.com...
> In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann.DeleteThis@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly
>> clear
>> that you are lying
>
> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
> you have no idea what you are talking about.

Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't matter.
(ie whether your ISP filters it, or your organisation filters it, or you
filter it, it doesn't matter) Spam clogs up bandwidth to an incredible
degree. Obviously YOU have "no idea what you are talking about" either.

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:58:40 +0000, Gordon wrote:

>> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
>> you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>
> Everybody DOES get spam.

Should, really, be "Everybody's at high risk of getting spam". If I set
up an email account today, it won't be hit by the spambots for a while,
yet... and if I'm really, really fanatical - as in never using it - it may
not get spam for a long, long time.

Active accounts, though? If they don't get spam today, wait until
tomorrow.

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

"Gordon" <gordon RemoveThis @gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> writes:

> "Mike" <no RemoveThis @where.man> wrote in message
> news:no-CD803D.08402801112006@news.supernews.com...
>> In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann RemoveThis @t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
>>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>>> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly
>>> clear
>>> that you are lying
>>
>> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
>> you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
>
> Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
> matter.

Wrong.

Everybody is possibly *SENT* Spam - IFF their email is compromised (and
by no means all are).

But not 100% of people GET spam. It is filtered.

gmail followed by spamassassin followed by gnus means I rarely get asked
to launder 5000000 dollars or get an 18 inch cock these days.

> (ie whether your ISP filters it, or your organisation filters it, or you
> filter it, it doesn't matter) Spam clogs up bandwidth to an incredible
> degree. Obviously YOU have "no idea what you are talking about" either.

No. You are wrong. The crux is about GETTING spam. And

(a) Not all email addresses are on the spammers books.

Conclusion : not every one is SENT spam.

(b) Some people and organisations know how to correctly filter spam.

Conclusion : not every one GETS spam *even* if they are sent spam.

From these two truisms we can deduce that Peter and you are : *WRONG*.

Again.

Gordon · External Since: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 465

Hadron Quark wrote:

> "Gordon" <gordon DeleteThis @gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>
>> "Mike" <no DeleteThis @where.man> wrote in message
>> news:no-CD803D.08402801112006@news.supernews.com...
>>> In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
>>>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>>>> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly
>>>> clear
>>>> that you are lying
>>>
>>> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
>>> you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>> Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
>> matter.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Everybody is possibly *SENT* Spam - IFF their email is compromised (and
> by no means all are).
>
> But not 100% of people GET spam. It is filtered.
>
> gmail followed by spamassassin followed by gnus means I rarely get asked
> to launder 5000000 dollars or get an 18 inch cock these days.
>
>> (ie whether your ISP filters it, or your organisation filters it, or you
>> filter it, it doesn't matter) Spam clogs up bandwidth to an incredible
>> degree. Obviously YOU have "no idea what you are talking about" either.
>
> No. You are wrong. The crux is about GETTING spam. And
>
> (a) Not all email addresses are on the spammers books.
>
> Conclusion : not every one is SENT spam.
>
> (b) Some people and organisations know how to correctly filter spam.
>
> Conclusion : not every one GETS spam *even* if they are sent spam.
>
> From these two truisms we can deduce that Peter and you are : *WRONG*.
>
> Again.

You're not very good at READING what you reply to are you? If you actually
took the time to READ and COMPREHEND what I wrote, you will actually see
that I said that whether you get spam or not is not the point - some ISPs
filter it before you get it, most organisations filter it before you get
it, a number of individuals filter it before they get it. BUT - most people
WILL get sent spam. Whether they actually receive it in their Inboxes or
not depends on the above.
I do HATE having to spell things out a second time to people who have
obviously had a very COMPREHENSIVE education......

--
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me invalidate the invalid!

Hadron Quark · External Since: Sep 10, 2006 Posts: 1621

Gordon <gbplinux DeleteThis @gmail.com.invalid> writes:

> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> "Gordon" <gordon DeleteThis @gbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> "Mike" <no DeleteThis @where.man> wrote in message
>>> news:no-CD803D.08402801112006@news.supernews.com...
>>>> In article <ei5g9d$mo2$00$1@news.t-online.com>,
>>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann DeleteThis @t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did I already mention that you are a liar?
>>>>> *Everyone* connected to the net and having an email addy gets spam.
>>>>> Without any exception. Claiming that you don't just makes it perfectly
>>>>> clear
>>>>> that you are lying
>>>>
>>>> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
>>>> you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>> Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
>>> matter.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Everybody is possibly *SENT* Spam - IFF their email is compromised (and
>> by no means all are).
>>
>> But not 100% of people GET spam. It is filtered.
>>
>> gmail followed by spamassassin followed by gnus means I rarely get asked
>> to launder 5000000 dollars or get an 18 inch cock these days.
>>
>>> (ie whether your ISP filters it, or your organisation filters it, or you
>>> filter it, it doesn't matter) Spam clogs up bandwidth to an incredible
>>> degree. Obviously YOU have "no idea what you are talking about" either.
>>
>> No. You are wrong. The crux is about GETTING spam. And
>>
>> (a) Not all email addresses are on the spammers books.
>>
>> Conclusion : not every one is SENT spam.
>>
>> (b) Some people and organisations know how to correctly filter spam.
>>
>> Conclusion : not every one GETS spam *even* if they are sent spam.
>>
>> From these two truisms we can deduce that Peter and you are : *WRONG*.
>>
>> Again.
>
> You're not very good at READING what you reply to are you? If you actually
> took the time to READ and COMPREHEND what I wrote, you will actually see
> that I said that whether you get spam or not is not the point - some ISPs
> filter it before you get it, most organisations filter it before you get
> it, a number of individuals filter it before they get it. BUT - most people
> WILL get sent spam. Whether they actually receive it in their Inboxes or
> not depends on the above.
> I do HATE having to spell things out a second time to people who have
> obviously had a very COMPREHENSIVE education......

You wrote this:

>>> Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
>>> matter.

You are wrong.

Not everyone does GET spam.

Huff & puff all you like.

--
What's this script do?
unzip ; touch ; finger ; mount ; gasp ; yes ; umount ; sleep
Hint for the answer: not everything is computer-oriented. Sometimes you're
in a sleeping bag, camping out with your girlfriend.
-- Contributed by Frans van der Zande

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron Quark
<qadronhuark DeleteThis @geemail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:37:39 +0100
<87odrr2eto.fsf DeleteThis @geemail.com>:

[snippage]

> You [Gordon] are wrong.
>
> Not everyone does GET spam.
>
> Huff & puff all you like.
>

No one gets spam unless they explicitly ask for it.
Part of the trouble, unfortunately, is that it's very easy
to do so; just an inclusion such as my email addy below
will do it.

And yes, I get a lot of spam, most of it silly, all of it
harmless except for consumption of bandwidth.

--
#191, ewill3 DeleteThis @earthlink.net
Linux. Because life's too short for a buggy OS.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason.DeleteThis@ncoldns.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.01.19.18.48.260044@ncoldns.com...
> [snips]
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:17:11 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> See, that's where you made a mistake. Recall my claim earlier about
>> an
>> e-mail account which received zero spam? It's on a domain I own. I
>> created ONE account on that domain. And I gave that address to 5 trusted
>> friends. I have not signed up any e-mails from that domain to any
>> websites, mailing lists, usenets, etc. Nobody knows about that domain,
>> let alone any e-mail address on that domain, except those 5 trusted
>> friends.
>
> So now it's just a matter of time until one of them gets pooched. Or
> forwards an email with your address to someone else who gets pooched. See
> how that works?
>
> That one doesn't get any spam this week means nothing.

It's been over a year with no spam.

>
>> Like I said, we were using different definitions. I distinguish
>> between
>> the server getting spam, and the user getting spam.
>
> If the user doesn't get any spam, the server doesn't need to run
> SpamAssassin.
>
> Simple enough?

Yes. I don't know why you think I don't understand your definition. I
do. I'm just saying we use DIFFERENT definitions. It's not inconceivable for
two people to have different definitions of the same terms, you know.

- Oliver

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:09:08 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

> Yes. I don't know why you think I don't understand your definition. I
> do. I'm just saying we use DIFFERENT definitions. It's not inconceivable
> for two people to have different definitions of the same terms, you know.

One's based on coping with reality, the other's based on some weird little
foo-foo-land. Since most of us don't live there, it behooves those who
do, when visiting here, to adopt terminology and concepts at least vaguely
related to this end of the universe.

Doesn't hit the inbox, indeed. Fine, take out the filtering and tell us
they don't get any spam. Yeesh.

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill.TakeThisOut@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:iu7n14-128.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> No one gets spam unless they explicitly ask for it.
> Part of the trouble, unfortunately, is that it's very easy
> to do so; just an inclusion such as my email addy below
> will do it.

(Depending on your definition of "explicitly ask for it"...) Unless of
course, the spammers are just trying random e-mail addresses at known
domains. (e.g. generate a random string, append "@hotmail.com" to it).

- Oliver

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong.DeleteThis@castortech.com>
wrote
on Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:10:56 GMT
<kb72h.77026$E67.23940@clgrps13>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill.DeleteThis@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:iu7n14-128.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>
>> No one gets spam unless they explicitly ask for it.
>> Part of the trouble, unfortunately, is that it's very easy
>> to do so; just an inclusion such as my email addy below
>> will do it.
>
> (Depending on your definition of "explicitly ask for it"...)

"Explicitly ask for it" includes:

- fetchmail (run by user)
- fetchmail cron (set up by sysadmin)
- Webmail (browsed by user)

> Unless of
> course, the spammers are just trying random e-mail addresses at known
> domains. (e.g. generate a random string, append "@hotmail.com" to it).

The probability of that working would be next to nil, in my
estimation. If one assumes 8 letter/number codes without
regard to case one is talking 36^8 = 2,821,109,907,456
combinations. At 1 millisecond a spam-send (assuming
1 recipient per) that will only take about 90 years.
At 1 microsecond it might take a month.

And of course HotMail might notice something far before that.

Note that at 150 KB/s (this is my DSL speed) a 1 KB spam
mail will take 7 milliseconds to send.

'bcc' is possible but I don't know the length restrictions
thereof. Assuming 2kb therein (making the entire send
take 21 milliseconds) and 21 chars (including comma),
one gets 97 customers per attempt and an effective speed
of 216 microseconds per send, or 18 years.

If one attempts 8 letter/number codes *with* case that ups it
to 52^8 = 53,459,728,531,456 -- almost 20x as long.

And then there's names that might be more than 8 characters.

It's no wonder buying/selling lists is so popular.

>
> - Oliver
>

--
#191, ewill3.DeleteThis@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason.RemoveThis@ncoldns.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.01.21.17.16.631176@ncoldns.com...
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:09:08 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> Yes. I don't know why you think I don't understand your definition. I
>> do. I'm just saying we use DIFFERENT definitions. It's not inconceivable
>> for two people to have different definitions of the same terms, you know.
>
> One's based on coping with reality, the other's based on some weird little
> foo-foo-land. Since most of us don't live there, it behooves those who
> do, when visiting here, to adopt terminology and concepts at least vaguely
> related to this end of the universe.
>
> Doesn't hit the inbox, indeed. Fine, take out the filtering and tell us
> they don't get any spam. Yeesh.

Yes, you don't like my definition. I understand that. I'm not asking you
to adopt my definition. I'm not saying your definition is stupid. I don't
see why you feel the need to argue with me. I already said I agree with you.

- Oliver

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill DeleteThis @sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:6cdn14-fh8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong

>> Unless of
>> course, the spammers are just trying random e-mail addresses at known
>> domains. (e.g. generate a random string, append "@hotmail.com" to it).
>
> The probability of that working would be next to nil, in my
> estimation. If one assumes 8 letter/number codes without
> regard to case one is talking 36^8 = 2,821,109,907,456
> combinations. At 1 millisecond a spam-send (assuming
> 1 recipient per) that will only take about 90 years.
> At 1 microsecond it might take a month.

Presumably the "random" used isn't uniformly random over all strings
but, e.g., from a dictionary of common names/handles/email-prefixes.

Kelsey's experience seems to reflect this happening:

<quote>
Okay, try this. Set up a mail server. On that server, set up a couple
hundred accounts, with typical addresses. Of those, post, say, half to
public areas - usenet, a few web sites, sign up for a few mailing lists,
etc.

Wait a week or three, see if the _rest_ of them don't start getting spam.
</quote>

Note the requirement of "with typical addresses".

- Oliver

Mike · External Since: Nov 04, 2006 Posts: 43

In article <87velz6r0k.fsf RemoveThis @geemail.com>,
Hadron Quark <qadronhuark RemoveThis @geemail.com> wrote:

> > Everybody DOES get spam. Whether you actually SEE it or not doesn't
> > matter.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Everybody is possibly *SENT* Spam - IFF their email is compromised (and
> by no means all are).

Exactly, and my ISP email address is NOT compromised, because I *never*
use it. The only thing that comes there is a once-a-month message from
my ISP.

Yes, that's right, I get ONE email a month to my ISP email address.

Therefore, "every computer connected to the internet" does NOT get spam.

My only public email address is a Hotmail account, and it gets *far*
less spam than it used to. I used to get 10 or 12 junk emails a day,
now it's down to 1 or 2. They are already pre-filtered to the junk
folder, and can be ignored.

Since these don't come to my computer, again "every computer connected
to the internet" does NOT get spam.

Mike

Gordon · External Since: Aug 01, 2005 Posts: 465

Mike wrote:

> Exactly, and my ISP email address is NOT compromised, because I *never*
> use it. The only thing that comes there is a once-a-month message from
> my ISP.

because your iSP F-I-L-T-E-R-S it!
Sheeesh!
--
Registered Linux User no 240308
to email me invalidate the invalid!

The Ghost In The Machine · External Since: Aug 04, 2005 Posts: 3878

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gordon
<gbplinux.RemoveThis@gmail.com.invalid>
wrote
on Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:48:53 +0000
<4qu7ebFog15bU1.RemoveThis@individual.net>:
> Mike wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly, and my ISP email address is NOT compromised, because I *never*
>> use it. The only thing that comes there is a once-a-month message from
>> my ISP.
>
> because your iSP F-I-L-T-E-R-S it!
> Sheeesh!

Does it? If the worldwide system of ZombieSpamBots never
sees the given addy, how would the ISP even filter it?
How would the ISP ever *receive* anything to filter?

I've already (mis-) [*] calculated the amount of time
it would take for a single spambot to bombard all
8-letter/number combinations to a single domain; now
multiply it by the number of domains and instead of 2.8
trillion entries one is looking at more than 2.8 trillion
squared -- that's 7.95 * 10^24 entries. The mass of the
Earth is only 5.976 * 10^24 kg.

That's darned big.

[*] turns out I was off by a factor of 1,000 -- instead of
28 years try 28 millennia. That's longer than it takes
for the Earth's axis to precess (26,000 years).

--
#191, ewill3.RemoveThis@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Mike · External Since: Nov 04, 2006 Posts: 43

In article <4qu7ebFog15bU1 RemoveThis @individual.net>,
Gordon <gbplinux RemoveThis @gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Mike wrote:
>
>
> > Exactly, and my ISP email address is NOT compromised, because I *never*
> > use it. The only thing that comes there is a once-a-month message from
> > my ISP.
>
> because your iSP F-I-L-T-E-R-S it!
> Sheeesh!

Perhaps, you don't know that for a fact.

Regardless, N-O-T E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E G-E-T-S S-P-A-M!!!

Mike

Oliver Wong · External Since: Apr 27, 2006 Posts: 1398

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason DeleteThis @ncoldns.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.02.00.14.36.720821@ncoldns.com...
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:58:40 +0000, Gordon wrote:
>
>>> Claiming that "everyone gets spam" just makes it perfectly clear that
>>> you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>> Everybody DOES get spam.
>
> Should, really, be "Everybody's at high risk of getting spam".

I thought you were arguing that everybody really does get spam (under
your definition of "gets spam", of course).

> If I set
> up an email account today, it won't be hit by the spambots for a while,
> yet... and if I'm really, really fanatical - as in never using it - it may
> not get spam for a long, long time.
>
> Active accounts, though? If they don't get spam today, wait until
> tomorrow.

Define active? Would weekly/monthly correspondence with five friends
count as active? I've had an account like that for over a year, and it
hasn't gotten spam yet. And there's no filtering on that account.

- Oliver

Kelsey Bjarnason · External Since: Sep 12, 2006 Posts: 1022

[snips]

On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:52:59 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:

>> Should, really, be "Everybody's at high risk of getting spam".
>
> I thought you were arguing that everybody really does get spam (under
> your definition of "gets spam", of course).

You "thought"? That requires thinking, something which seems to be beyond
you. Don't conflate bashing you over one piece of your idiocy with
agreeing, in toto, with something else.

(OS) The thing I *hate* most about Microsoft Windows.

(OS) The thing I hate most about Microsoft Windows.