www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [OT] Convention of Communication

reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet 
convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of 
the author and a valid email adress of the author.

I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing 
convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break 
convention.

-manfred
May 28 2009
next sibling parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Manfred Nowak Wrote:


 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet 
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of 
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


What is usenet?
May 28 2009
parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:15:48 +0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Manfred Nowak Wrote:


 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


 What is usenet?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
May 28 2009
parent reply Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Denis Koroskin Wrote:


 On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:15:48 +0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:
 

 Manfred Nowak Wrote:


 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


 What is usenet?


 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet


yet another board system...
May 28 2009
parent reply "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:02:04 +0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Denis Koroskin Wrote:


 On Thu, 28 May 2009 14:15:48 +0400, Kagamin <spam here.lot> wrote:


 Manfred Nowak Wrote:


 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name  




 of

 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


 What is usenet?


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet


 yet another board system...


FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet category:

Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details):

 On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ...
May 28 2009
parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
Denis Koroskin wrote:

 FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet category:
 
 Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details):

 On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ...




Just because NNTP is used for Usenet doesn't mean every NNTP server is a Usenet 
server.
Similarly, not every TCP/IP network is the Internet and not every car is the
one 
I drove to the supermarket last week :P.
May 28 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Frits van Bommel" <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote in message 
news:gvlsjc$1881$1 digitalmars.com...

 Denis Koroskin wrote:

 FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet 
 category:

 Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details):

 On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ...




 Just because NNTP is used for Usenet doesn't mean every NNTP server is a 
 Usenet server.
 Similarly, not every TCP/IP network is the Internet and not every car is 
 the one I drove to the supermarket last week :P.


"WiFi available here!" [pet peeve]Not every WiFi network is conected to the 
internet[/pet peeve]
May 28 2009
parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Frits van Bommel" <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote in message 
 news:gvlsjc$1881$1 digitalmars.com...

 Denis Koroskin wrote:

 FWIW, NNTP (which is used in newsgroups like this) falls into Usenet 
 category:

 Wikipedia quote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Technical_details):

 On the Internet, Usenet is typically served via NNTP ...




 Just because NNTP is used for Usenet doesn't mean every NNTP server is a 
 Usenet server.
 Similarly, not every TCP/IP network is the Internet and not every car is 
 the one I drove to the supermarket last week :P.


 
 "WiFi available here!" [pet peeve]Not every WiFi network is conected to the 
 internet[/pet peeve] 


One day I would like to walk into a coffee shop my laptop, connect to 
Wi-Fi and be able to only explore the cafe's intranet.
May 28 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet 
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of 
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.
 
 I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing 
 convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break 
 convention.
 
 -manfred


No. There's no reason to require or even incentivize non-anonymity.
May 28 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:
Manfred Nowak wrote:

 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet 
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of 
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.
 
 I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing 
 convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break 
 convention.
 
 -manfred



There are many reasons for encouraging, or even enforcing, non-anonymity 
on a forum. Some of them are good. Ancient Convention is -- no offense 
-- not one of them. :)

This NG is not plagued by spam, trolls or hit'n'runs, so I see no reason 
to require non-anonymity.

But who knows, maybe acts of terrorism are being planned inbetween lines 
of D code in this very forum? (Oh no, did I just bring us to the 
Attention of the Authorities?)

-Lars
May 28 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom 65.204.18.192...

 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email 
address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".


 I wonder whether those who set themself apart by breaking existing
 convention would appreciate to be set apart, when others too break
 convention.

 -manfred
May 28 2009
parent reply "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom 65.204.18.192...

 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


 Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email
 address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".


I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two
spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years
ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good
an idea.

--
  Simen
May 28 2009
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.uun3kgep1hx7vj biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no...

 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom 65.204.18.192...

 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name of
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


 Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email
 address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".


 I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two
 spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years
 ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good
 an idea.


I've tried a number of filters over the years, even popular and 
highly-respected ones, but never found one that didn't give me both 
false-positives and false-negatives. The way I do things now, despite having 
no filters, I also have no spam at all and (naturally) no valid messages 
accidentally being rejected. So I see the filters as little more than 
clumbsy bandage-appoach.
May 29 2009
parent reply "Vladimir Panteleev" <thecybershadow gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 30 May 2009 00:26:02 +0300, Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:op.uun3kgep1hx7vj biotronic-pc.osir.hihm.no...

 Nick Sabalausky <a a.a> wrote:


 "Manfred Nowak" <svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:Xns9C197A654DF6Dsvv1999hotmailcom 65.204.18.192...

 At least a quarter of the last postings here do not follow the usenet
 convention of proper identifying the author---which is the full name  
 of
 the author and a valid email adress of the author.


 Are you kidding me? There isn't a chance in hell I'd put a valid email
 address for myself on a newsgroup posting. "Hey bots! Please spam me!".


 I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two
 spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years
 ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good
 an idea.


 I've tried a number of filters over the years, even popular and
 highly-respected ones, but never found one that didn't give me both
 false-positives and false-negatives. The way I do things now, despite  
 having
 no filters, I also have no spam at all and (naturally) no valid messages
 accidentally being rejected. So I see the filters as little more than
 clumbsy bandage-appoach.


Offline (stand-alone) filters can't stand up to filters maintained by a  
multi-billion-dollar company, powered by instant user feedback and  
analysis from millions of accounts (I'm talking about the "mark as (not)  
spam" buttons). Did you know that Gmail actually scans image attachments  
with OCR? (The Viagra spammers started sending e-mails with some  
markov-chain-generated body and the actual advertisement on a generated  
picture).

A few years ago I was also paranoid about leaving my e-mail address in  
plain text on the web, until I noticed that D's Bugzilla doesn't attempt  
to hide them (I even filed a ticket about this, which got closed a year  
later or so). Today I get over 1000 spam e-mails per month, out of which  
about one or two gets past the filter.

By the way, you can set up Gmail to retrieve mail from your other inbox  
(assuming you don't use some webmail-only service like Yahoo) and pass it  
through its spam filter.

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow gmail.com
Jun 04 2009
parent reply Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
Vladimir Panteleev Wrote:


 By the way, you can set up Gmail to retrieve mail from your other inbox  
 (assuming you don't use some webmail-only service like Yahoo) and pass it  
 through its spam filter.
 
 -- 
 Best regards,
   Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow gmail.com


I'd be interested to know if you got my email.

Steve
Jun 05 2009
parent "Vladimir Panteleev" <thecybershadow gmail.com> writes:
On Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:55:34 +0300, Steve Teale  
<steve.teale britseyeview.com> wrote:


 I'd be interested to know if you got my email.


I got it, because Gmail's hyper-sophisticated AI recognized it was a joke  
and not genuine spam :D

Seriously though, a spam filter that makes decisions solely on the  
e-mail's content can only get so good. Matching e-mails against huge  
databases of previous records and user decisions put Gmail's filter above  
the average corporate one. So, you should try sending that e-mail to a few  
hundred thousand addresses and see if it'll work then :)

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir                          mailto:thecybershadow gmail.com
Jun 05 2009
prev sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Simen Kjaeraas Wrote:


 I'm doing it. Mostly 'cause of gmail's filter being good. I think two
 spam messages have made it past it since I got the account, some 4 years
 ago. 'course, if you got a crappy mail provider, it might not be as good
 an idea.


Yeah, spam fighting is the best application for computers.
May 29 2009