Are SA User's ALL Idiots?

Now I realize that there are a lot of spammers hanging around, that just
attack me because they can't get past my little program,

but STILL!!!


With SA and its siblings, the subject line is checked for various strings
and characters in various orders.

And they DON'T send lists of these to people that they receive or want to
receive mail from.


Now how in the HELL are people supposed to know what they can and cannot put
on the subject line?

I mean, is this STUPID or what?


It's pretty damn obvious that SA is a favorite of spammers. No wonder!



Because they KNOW that SA users are saving what *might* be spam (no way the
program can tell for sure) to what is ultimately just another mailbox, and
then looking it over.


What a frigging joke.


The only thing that SA assassinates is common sense.


Alan C



--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a

Alan Connor wrote:

>
> Now I realize that there are a lot of spammers hanging around, that just
> attack me because they can't get past my little program,
>
> but STILL!!!
>
>
> With SA and its siblings, the subject line is checked for various strings
> and characters in various orders.
>
> And they DON'T send lists of these to people that they receive or want to
> receive mail from.
>
>
> Now how in the HELL are people supposed to know what they can and cannot
> put on the subject line?
>
> I mean, is this STUPID or what?
>
>
> It's pretty damn obvious that SA is a favorite of spammers. No wonder!
>
>
>
> Because they KNOW that SA users are saving what *might* be spam (no way
> the program can tell for sure) to what is ultimately just another mailbox,
> and then looking it over.
>
>
> What a frigging joke.
>
>
> The only thing that SA assassinates is common sense.
>
>
> Alan C
>
>
>
An interesting thought. SA also has a program to recognize "ham", i.e.
non-spam. I do save what SA sees as spam, but I never look at it beyond
the headers, and often not at all. The box is emptied by a startup script
each time I log on. (The script runs spamlearn on the box, then empties
it. I suppose I should make it run "hamlearn(?)" too.) And because the
spam is directed at you guys in the States, and I am in Oz, it is useless
to me, anyway.

I have a lot of sympathy with the guys who ask for verification from the
sender, but that has its risks too. Similarly, in the U.S., you can block
all phone calls from "private". We can't do that yet, but we can see the
caller's number, and many of the "private" ones are NOT canvassers.

Doug.
--
Registered Linux User No. 277548.
They say lightning never strikes twice in the same place. My typing is
about as accurate. Apologies for any typos that slip in. - Doug.

"Alan Connor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:dca4b.2528$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
> [...]
> The only thing that SA assassinates is common sense.

I agree with this. And inevitably everyone who has this garbage says
"it's a snap to retrain when it makes mistakes," which is simply an
admission by these dopes that they have to regularly sit there looking
meticulously at subject and from fields of supposedly "assassinated"
messages.

A simple safe-list based technology would do the same thing, i.e. sort
your mail, without six-hundred levels of supposed "intelligence" that in
actuality does probably not one single truly useful thing. Spam assassin
is a cowardly non-solution to a real problem.

I'd say a perhaps better solution is further work on development of a
large community of users that together agree to do one thing:
systematically block emails from *entire blocks* of IP addresses owned by
ISPs that allow spam to continue.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, wlcna wrote:

> "Alan Connor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:dca4b.2528$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
> > [...]
> > The only thing that SA assassinates is common sense.
>
> I agree with this. And inevitably everyone who has this garbage says
> "it's a snap to retrain when it makes mistakes," which is simply an
> admission by these dopes that they have to regularly sit there looking
> meticulously at subject and from fields of supposedly "assassinated"
> messages.

Maybe, but we have been running SpamAssassin for almost a year with ZERO
false positives. Now perhaps it does not detect all spam, but it
does catch >90% of the spam. That is a huge benefit. No need to re-train
because we have zero false positives.

>
>
> I'd say a perhaps better solution is further work on development of a
> large community of users that together agree to do one thing:
> systematically block emails from *entire blocks* of IP addresses owned by
> ISPs that allow spam to continue.

That's what SPEWS does. Do try to keep up.

>
>
>

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:41:05 GMT, Whoever <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003, Alan Connor wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It's pretty damn obvious that SA is a favorite of spammers. No wonder!
>>
>>
>>
>> Because they KNOW that SA users are saving what *might* be spam (no way the
>> program can tell for sure) to what is ultimately just another mailbox, and
>> then looking it over.
>>
> I'd like to know how they *know* this, since my company's mailserver sends
> those emails with a high score (as calculated by Spam Assassin) straight
> to a central spambox. NO-ONE LOOKS AT THE SPAMBOX. We keep the spambox for
> a few weeks just in case someone claims to have lost an email.
>

"in case someone claims to have lost an email" ??

Now just WHO is going to claim that? This is incoming mail, right?

If someone sent you a mail and it didn't get through, then they are going to
send it again, with the SAME subject.




> It has been configured like this for almost a year and frankly, the emails
> could go to /dev/null and there would be no practical difference.
>
> So SA is very effective at stopping any humans from reading the spam.
>
>

Just bullshit. I call bullshit.

With an SA system you can't EVER be sure you haven't diverted (not assassinated)important mail.


Someone is looking over that mail religiously.


You want to believe that SA works, so you turn a blind eye to it.


Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:52:32 GMT, wlcna <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> "Alan Connor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:dca4b.2528$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
>> [...]
>> The only thing that SA assassinates is common sense.
>
> I agree with this. And inevitably everyone who has this garbage says
> "it's a snap to retrain when it makes mistakes," which is simply an
> admission by these dopes that they have to regularly sit there looking
> meticulously at subject and from fields of supposedly "assassinated"
> messages.
>
> A simple safe-list based technology would do the same thing, i.e. sort
> your mail, without six-hundred levels of supposed "intelligence" that in
> actuality does probably not one single truly useful thing. Spam assassin
> is a cowardly non-solution to a real problem.
>
> I'd say a perhaps better solution is further work on development of a
> large community of users that together agree to do one thing:
> systematically block emails from *entire blocks* of IP addresses owned by
> ISPs that allow spam to continue.
>
>

Only problem with that approach is that the domain names being blocked
could well belong to a different entity altogether next week.

I have seen no realistic solution other than refusing to accept anonymous
mail altogether.


Alan C

--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:45:18 GMT, Whoever <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, wlcna wrote:
>
>> "Alan Connor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:dca4b.2528$(E-Mail Removed) ink.net...
>> > [...]
>> > The only thing that SA assassinates is common sense.
>>
>> I agree with this. And inevitably everyone who has this garbage says
>> "it's a snap to retrain when it makes mistakes," which is simply an
>> admission by these dopes that they have to regularly sit there looking
>> meticulously at subject and from fields of supposedly "assassinated"
>> messages.
>
> Maybe, but we have been running SpamAssassin for almost a year with ZERO
> false positives. Now perhaps it does not detect all spam, but it
> does catch >90% of the spam. That is a huge benefit. No need to re-train
> because we have zero false positives.
>

So you have spent a whole frigging year messing with the program and
reading spam or its headers.

And you will NEVER be able to be as sure as you claim and will be saving
the "might-be-spam" and looking it over and messing with your filters
FOREVER.


>>
>>
>> I'd say a perhaps better solution is further work on development of a
>> large community of users that together agree to do one thing:
>> systematically block emails from *entire blocks* of IP addresses owned by
>> ISPs that allow spam to continue.
>
> That's what SPEWS does. Do try to keep up.
>
>>
>>
>>
>


Do save the bullshit for the peasants.


Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Alan Connor wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 04:45:18 GMT, Whoever <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > Maybe, but we have been running SpamAssassin for almost a year with ZERO
> > false positives. Now perhaps it does not detect all spam, but it
> > does catch >90% of the spam. That is a huge benefit. No need to re-train
> > because we have zero false positives.
> >
>
> So you have spent a whole frigging year messing with the program and
> reading spam or its headers.

Do try to read. SpamAssassin has required very little "messing with". I
said it has been "running" for a year.

>
> And you will NEVER be able to be as sure as you claim and will be saving
> the "might-be-spam" and looking it over and messing with your filters
> FOREVER.

As opposed to losing emails from people who either can't or won't reply to
your challenge email? Yes, I read the links you pointed to.
Challenge-response has been around for some time and has not been adopted
widely because clueless users can't understand or don't want to reply.

> >
> > That's what SPEWS does. Do try to keep up.
>
> Do save the bullshit for the peasants.

Evidently you know about BS. You write it all the time!

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 05:17:16 GMT, Alan Connor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>


Dear Whoever:

I am REALLY sick of your bullshit.

I am NOT reading anymore of your posts.


Get thee gone and get thee a life.

I am about to adopt a policy of ignoring posts from anyone who doesn't
use their real name and include a valid email address.

Am putting together a script that will automate the process, sending a
a brief message to the person asking them to just send it back.

REALLY tired of jerks like you.


Alan C


--

take control of your mailbox ----- elrav1 ----- http://tinyurl.com/l55a

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Alan Connor answered his own rant thus:

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:56:41 GMT, Alan Connor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Whoever:
> >
< Garbage snipped>

Do you really think you can impress anyone with the load of rubbish that
you posted? Do you really think I care if you don't read my postings?

Your response will have caused many people to put you in their killfiles.
That "plonk" sound is the sound of "Alan Connor" dropping into a thousand
killfiles.

Of course if you respond to this, it will just show that you can't even be
consistent, saying that you won't read my posings, then actually reading
them.

> >
> > Alan C
>
> Correction: Just the valid email address part.
>
> And wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone used a program like elrav1.

No-one is going to use it apart from you because everyone is going to
think you are a total freak because of your own writings.