Hi Folks, An old theme, but surely it's time something was done! As we know, the proportion of spam junk in the list archives is high. For example, out of almost 400 messages this month, some 175 are spam (44%). This makes it a real pain to hunt back through the archives for messages/threads one wants to revisit, and expecially to search for ones with a possibly relevant subject-line for a topic one is interested in. However, we don't seem to get this junk actually mailed to us by the list, yet it goes into the archives none the less. If it can be filtered out before being mailed to subscribers, why can't it be filtered out before going into the archives? Just curious ... Best wishes to all, Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 03-Aug-06 Time: 23:01:02 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Thursday 03 August 2006 14:01, Ted Harding wrote:
As we know, the proportion of spam junk in the list archives is high. For example, out of almost 400 messages this month, some 175 are spam (44%).
Not true. They say SPAM in the subect due to some overly aggressive tagging by the list hosting machine. But they are not in fact spam. Look at them and you will see. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 14:19 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 03 August 2006 14:01, Ted Harding wrote:
As we know, the proportion of spam junk in the list archives is high. For example, out of almost 400 messages this month, some 175 are spam (44%).
Not true.
They say SPAM in the subect due to some overly aggressive tagging by the list hosting machine. But they are not in fact spam. Look at them and you will see.
I would say look again and count them. This has been asked so many fscking times it is pathetic and has -ALWAYS- fallen on deaf ears. I guess Novell does hire the handicaped as the list admin for this list -NEVER- responds to any requests for help, either on list or directly. Aint going to happen ever, never in the past, not this year or ever so don't ask for the SPAM messages to be removed. The archives have become a useless pile of dog dung, so hopelessly useless I never recommend to anyone any more. When you have to weed through 50-60% useless SPAM messages why bother! That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
On Thursday 03 August 2006 17:53, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 14:19 -0800, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 03 August 2006 14:01, Ted Harding wrote:
As we know, the proportion of spam junk in the list archives is high. For example, out of almost 400 messages this month, some 175 are spam (44%).
Not true.
They say SPAM in the subect due to some overly aggressive tagging by the list hosting machine. But they are not in fact spam. Look at them and you will see.
I would say look again and count them. This has been asked so many fscking times it is pathetic and has -ALWAYS- fallen on deaf ears. I guess Novell does hire the handicaped as the list admin for this list -NEVER- responds to any requests for help, either on list or directly. Aint going to happen ever, never in the past, not this year or ever so don't ask for the SPAM messages to be removed. The archives have become a useless pile of dog dung, so hopelessly useless I never recommend to anyone any more. When you have to weed through 50-60% useless SPAM messages why bother!
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
-- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
Chill. That was the way it used to be. Check out Henne's email from 7/14/06, #276825. http://lists4.opensuse.org The new email lists will have all that true spam removed and any real messages with spam in the subject line will be left alone. All the email will be searchable. It is being actively worked on. Stan
On 03-Aug-06 John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 03 August 2006 14:01, Ted Harding wrote:
As we know, the proportion of spam junk in the list archives is high. For example, out of almost 400 messages this month, some 175 are spam (44%).
Not true.
They say SPAM in the subect due to some overly aggressive tagging by the list hosting machine. But they are not in fact spam. Look at them and you will see.
Sorry, but it is true. I was careful about that very point, and did not count messages with subjects like [SLE] SPAM: USB 2.0 acting as 1.x (od which, I grant, there are indeed a good few), but messages with subjects like SPAM: Get a better job! SPAM: Home Loan Application Lorna Hightower SPAM: Re: bizokVijagra Raina Kunkel SPAM: $B7K!!%:%l4](B momoe SPAM: Fw: All who loves MONEY which are there in abundance. See http://lists.suse.de/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Aug/ for yourself! Ted. -------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 04-Aug-06 Time: 00:19:40 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On Thursday 03 August 2006 18:19, John Andersen wrote:
Not true.
They say SPAM in the subect due to some overly aggressive tagging by the list hosting machine. But they are not in fact spam. Look at them and you will see.
Have you looked in the archives?? Lots of spam there that never made it to the list. (but it did go to the archives)
On Friday 04 August 2006 00:19, John Andersen wrote:
On Thursday 03 August 2006 14:01, Ted Harding wrote:
As we know, the proportion of spam junk in the list archives is high. For example, out of almost 400 messages this month, some 175 are spam (44%).
Not true.
They say SPAM in the subect due to some overly aggressive tagging by the list hosting machine. But they are not in fact spam. Look at them and you will see.
Huh? I suppose you misunderstood. ;) As I understand it, Ted is talking about spam in the list's *archives*, not about spam in list's *emails we get sent*. (BTW, you're correct about SPAM in the Subject, but, as you might understand now, that's a different subject :P) ;) Cheers, Leen
participants (6)
-
Bruce Marshall -
John Andersen -
Ken Schneider -
Leendert Meyer -
Stan Glasoe -
Ted.Harding＠nessie.mcc.ac.uk