Martin Frey

The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
though they are beginning to make me less than sober).

Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
doubling my online dialup time.

Am I alone or is this general?

Sorry OT but ...

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Jo

In news:slu2s09cm0rorphl3jvd80fcjqnhq9pg7f@4ax.com,
Martin Frey <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> typed:
> The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
> sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
> though they are beginning to make melessthansober.
>
> Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
> doubling my online dialup time.
>
> Am I alone or is this general?
>

I have a "public" email address that appears on a few websites. Some days
around 200 spams and virus laden attachments can arrive to that address. My
solution was to take out a SpamCop subscription. For around 20 UKP per year
you get spam and virus filtering before the stuff ever gets to your POP3
mailbox. For me, leakage through the SpamCop system is 2-3 emails per day,
which Norton deals with happily.

Jo

Pete Lawrence

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:17:41 +0000, Martin Frey
<martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote:

>The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
>sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
>though they are beginning to make me less than sober).
>
>Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
>doubling my online dialup time.
>
>Am I alone or is this general?
>
>Sorry OT but ...
>

Qurb (www.qurb.com). Works for me ;-)

I have a number of email accounts dotted around the place. Some get
hit wth viruses more often than others. Sometimes I get messages
telling me that emails that I've sent (only haven't!) couldn't be
delivered - despite having a fully up to date virus checker, firewall
and frequently run spyware remover.

A while back I kept getting a burst of emails from odd sources such as
NASA! I think it's a common, albeit annoying, problem Martin!

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

Martin Frey

Pete Lawrence <pete.lawrence@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>A while back I kept getting a burst of emails from odd sources such as
>NASA! I think it's a common, albeit annoying, problem Martin!

I know its common - had infected emails coming in for years but the
frequency of late has risen sharply and I wondered if this increase
was just my luck of the draw or general.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Robert Geake

"Martin Frey" <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slu2s09cm0rorphl3jvd80fcjqnhq9pg7f@4ax.com...
> The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
> sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
> though they are beginning to make me less than sober).
>
> Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
> doubling my online dialup time.
>
> Am I alone or is this general?
>
> Sorry OT but ...
>
> -----------------------------
> Martin Frey
> http://www.hadastro.org.uk
> N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
> -----------------------------
I too suffer from spam and in the study of spam headers i realised that
generally they seem to have 2 address in the From: header seperated by a
comma or semi-colon.

Put simply a kill rule in your email client deleting any mails with either ;
or , in the from line reduced my spam by at least 75%. Make sure they are
deleted and not moved to the trash folder where an innocent click can
unleash the beasts. And NEVER EVER un-subscribe from a spam list cos it just
adds you to 3 more ;(

Rob

Phil

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:17:41 +0000, Martin Frey wrote:

> The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
> sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
> though they are beginning to make me less than sober).
>
> Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
> doubling my online dialup time.
>
> Am I alone or is this general?
>
> Sorry OT but ...
>
> -----------------------------
> Martin Frey
> http://www.hadastro.org.uk
> N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
> -----------------------------

Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
doesnt have to worry about viruses.
Phil

Ed Holden

Phil wrote:

> Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
> doesnt have to worry about viruses.

If only that were true. :-( Whilst Mac and Linux systems cannot be
infected with viruses, we still receive Windows viruses in e-mail and they
soak up our bandwidth by incessantly banging away on our firewalls.

Paul Smith

"Phil" <phil.bishop3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.16.17.11.29.108376@ntlworld.com.. .

> Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
> doesnt have to worry about viruses.

A very narrow minded view to take.

But to the original poster, yes I've noticed a surge in infected e-mails.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
http://www.halflifeportal.com/ All things Half-Life.
http://www.xbox2portal.com/ Xbox 2 news.

*Replace nospam with smirnov to reply by e-mail*

Peter Hayes

Phil <phil.bishop3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:17:41 +0000, Martin Frey wrote:
>
> > The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
> > sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
> > though they are beginning to make me less than sober).
> >
> > Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
> > doubling my online dialup time.
> >
> > Am I alone or is this general?
> >
> > Sorry OT but ...
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > Martin Frey
> > http://www.hadastro.org.uk
> > N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
> > -----------------------------
>
> Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
> doesnt have to worry about viruses.

There's always a downside. Although Mac and Linux machines cannot be
infected they can pass the infection on through e-mail, etc, which is
the only reason Mac A/V software exists, at least for OS X.

Gates should be sued to bancrupcy for his sloppy coding.

--

Peter

A. Peter Hayes

Martin Frey wrote:
> The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
> sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
> though they are beginning to make me less than sober).
>
> Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
> doubling my online dialup time.
>
> Am I alone or is this general?
>
> Sorry OT but ...

According to the computer trade press junk mail is several 100% up since
last year, a lot of that carries viruses. My employers run a virus
scanner on their mail server and quarantine upto 10 a day addressed to me.

Rule 1 NEVER put your real e-mail address in a news posting, or web
page, it just makes you a target. My real e-mail is first initial,
middle name and surname, the address on this posting goes into a black hole.

If your ISP was a web interface to mail use that to delete the junk
before downloading.

See if your ISP has virus / spam filters and suggest to them that others
who do have might get your business. I've been checking the
telewest/blueyonder spam filter for a couple of weeks and its just about
well enough trained to switch it to delete on the server.

Try getting the thunderbird news/mail reader (www.mozilla.org) and teach
its spam filter, it still costs you the download time but allows a quick
eyeball scan of the mail headers marked as junk then a 1 click delete
for the lot. Also much less likely to let a virus through than Outlook
Express.

Pete H

Jim

Paul Smith <Paul@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> "Phil" <phil.bishop3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> newsan.2004.12.16.17.11.29.108376@ntlworld.com.. .
>
> > Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
> > doesnt have to worry about viruses.
>
> A very narrow minded view to take.

Except that it's true.

Currently.

Jim
--
jim@magrathea.plus.com AIM/iSight:JCAndrew2 - Log in and say 'hi'
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

Kev

"Martin Frey" <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slu2s09cm0rorphl3jvd80fcjqnhq9pg7f@4ax.com...
>
> Am I alone or is this general?

At the mo, im okay, but in summer I changed all my email addresses because I
was suddenly getting several hundred a day!

Since then Ive been very careful in how I post and where, with different
email addresses used for various groups of frends, that way if it leaks I
knnow where. Additionally I also took it off my website.
I also positive filter, i.e. only those that I have in my address book don't
get deleted from server.

Also run MacCaffe 2004 Virus scan (only-without the rest of it), zonealarm,
and Adware SE. Which stops most of the c**p.

This means that my inbox spam rate is about 1 a month, and the delete from
mail server rate is about 2 a week at the mo.

*Touch wood*!

Kev

John Knight

Jo wrote:
> In news:slu2s09cm0rorphl3jvd80fcjqnhq9pg7f@4ax.com,
> Martin Frey <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> typed:
>
>>The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
>>sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
>>though they are beginning to make melessthansober.
>>
>>Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
>>doubling my online dialup time.
>>
>>Am I alone or is this general?
>>
>
>
> I have a "public" email address that appears on a few websites. Some days
> around 200 spams and virus laden attachments can arrive to that address. My
> solution was to take out a SpamCop subscription. For around 20 UKP per year
> you get spam and virus filtering before the stuff ever gets to your POP3
> mailbox. For me, leakage through the SpamCop system is 2-3 emails per day,
> which Norton deals with happily.
>
> Jo
>

My ISP (BTconnect) tags many of the 50+ mails I get each day with
*SPAM?* and Thunderbird is trained to zap various others, but I'm
still not satisfied.

I had already started learning Java and then found the JavaMail
package, so wrote a quick&dirty program to locate the tagged mails on
the POP3 server and delete them before downloading. The ISP tagging
seems very accurate so I'm happy to zap them without seeing them
first. One day I might make it smarter to get rid of those with
keywords like Rolex...

(Am I going to regret this?) If anyone wants a copy I could make it
available for free, at your own risk etc. You might have to install
the Java runtime though, and it does have to be POP3, not webmail.

JK
(drop the "notreally" for mailed replies - and don't put *SPAM?* in
the subject!!!)

Mark McIntyre

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Phil
<phil.bishop3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
>doesnt have to worry about viruses.

Please do NOT distribute such nonsensical suggestions. Even a trivial
websearch proves your error.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

chris.b@mail.dk

My ISP has an optional and powerful free spam screening service. I back
it up with e-mail scanning with my firewall and antivirus software. A
virus notice simply appears as a harmless 2 line e-mail. The stinking
pile of spam goes into a large folder (1000 spams) at my ISP in case I
want to check for real mails.

I also run (constantly-updated) Adaware and Spybot daily to ensure I'm
not infested with tracking bugs.

Isn't it your ISP's responsibility to block potentially harmful and
time-wasting spam? If all ISPs did so there would be very little spam.

The truly paranoid might consider that the spammers are now offering
anti-spam software.

Chris.B

Jo

In news:cpt6nu$bi3$1@titan.btinternet.com,
John Knight <john.p.knight@btconnect.notreally.com> typed:

> (Am I going to regret this?) If anyone wants a copy I could make it
> available for free, at your own risk etc. You might have to install
> the Java runtime though, and it does have to be POP3, not webmail.
>

The advantage of the SpamCop solution is that the crap is trapped *before*
it gets to your POP3 box and so no further action, such as deleting them, is
required. And, of course, they don't have to be downloaded to be tagged or
filtered. SpamCop retains the intercepted messages for a few weeks before
binning them, just in case you want to check them.

Jo

Martin Frey

Many thanks for useful responses. The increase ain't general but I am
far from alone in experiencing it.

My ISP reckons their customers wouldn't like them interfering with
their customers emails and so will only filter out on specific request
with known subject and or sender - not a feature of most virus
bearers.

I've now got frontgate installed but it needs a pre-known source for
its filters.

What would be handy is to pre-screen anything with an attachment and
give me the option of deleting or downloading later - eg when phone
rates are cheaper.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <bj84s0t7g28f36cvtmsjidvnfni67t85dv@4ax.com>, dated
Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:06:14, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> posted :
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:11:20 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , Phil
><phil.bishop3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Its only a problem for Windows users. Anyone running a Mac or Linux system
>>doesnt have to worry about viruses.
>
>Please do NOT distribute such nonsensical suggestions. Even a trivial
>websearch proves your error.

It's no doubt true that real viruses for Mac/Linux/etc. do exist and
propagate.

But at present a vast amount of malmail is being generated, aimed at
"more-or-less arbitrary left parts @ somewhere". This particularly
affects those who "own" an E-address set "everything @ somewhere", of
course. Even auto-refusing stuff to unknown left parts takes machine and
link time.

AIUI that class of stuff is only infective on PCs or on Windows PCs; but
it can amount to a DoS attack on anyone.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Lockon

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:04:54 +0000, Martin Frey
<martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote:

>I've now got frontgate installed but it needs a pre-known source for
>its filters.
>
>What would be handy is to pre-screen anything with an attachment and
>give me the option of deleting or downloading later - eg when phone
>rates are cheaper.

Have you looked at Mailwasher? http://www.mailwasher.net/
It will compare incoming emails against Spamcop's list of known
spammers and flag those that are known for deletion - also features a
learning mode so it improves with time, has a friends list and flags
their messages as such. Preview and delete mail without ever
downloading it. Very good I reckon, and have been using it for the
last two years.
Regds Lock

Jim

Dr John Stockton <spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> It's no doubt true that real viruses for Mac/Linux/etc. do exist and
> propagate.

Currently there is one virus for MacOSX, and it's more-or-less a proof
of concept and actually requires you to install it!

Most attacks on Unix systems (and I group MacOSX, FreeBSD and Linux in
this) takes the form of exploits against running services, ie they are
targetted at services running on the host machine (such as Apache)
rather than the OS itself, and there's no 'infection' as such.

> But at present a vast amount of malmail is being generated, aimed at
> "more-or-less arbitrary left parts @ somewhere". This particularly
> affects those who "own" an E-address set "everything @ somewhere", of
> course. Even auto-refusing stuff to unknown left parts takes machine and
> link time.
>
> AIUI that class of stuff is only infective on PCs or on Windows PCs; but
> it can amount to a DoS attack on anyone.

Correct.

A brief extract from my firewall log:

[odin] jim > sudo tail -f /var/log/security
Dec 18 05:20:41 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 212.159.115.213:4093
192.168.2.2:445 in via ed1
Dec 18 05:20:44 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 212.159.115.213:4093
192.168.2.2:445 in via ed1
Dec 18 05:45:59 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 212.159.115.67:3808
192.168.2.2:445 in via ed1
Dec 18 05:46:02 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 212.159.115.67:3808
192.168.2.2:445 in via ed1
Dec 18 05:59:00 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 211.144.162.199:3249
192.168.2.2:1080 in via ed1
Dec 18 05:59:03 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 211.144.162.199:3249
192.168.2.2:1080 in via ed1
Dec 18 06:08:36 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 217.126.251.47:1091
192.168.2.2:1433 in via ed1
Dec 18 06:08:46 odin last message repeated 2 times
Dec 18 06:13:26 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 212.159.115.67:3462
192.168.2.2:445 in via ed1
Dec 18 06:13:29 odin /kernel: ipfw: 65435 Deny TCP 212.159.115.67:3462
192.168.2.2:445 in via ed1

Of those entries, the '445' ones are Windows viruses attempting to
spread, the 1080 one is probably 'WinHole' and the 1433 is someone
trying to connect to a (nonexistant) MS SQL server.

In other words, they're all Windows attacks.

I hate Windows. I really, really do.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
If half the software you're running is to protect you from other
software, you're using the wrong operating system.

Mark McIntyre

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:11:57 +0000, in uk.sci.astronomy ,
jim@magrathea.plus.com (Jim) wrote:

>Most attacks on Unix systems (and I group MacOSX, FreeBSD and Linux in
>this) takes the form of exploits against running services, ie they are
>targetted at services running on the host machine (such as Apache)
>rather than the OS itself, and there's no 'infection' as such.

FWIW I'd argue that this is little different to windows viruses - most if
not all target something running or available on the host machine (IIS,
SQLServer, Wordpad, Office, etc). The real question is whether the virus is
then able to gain elevated priveleges on the box. Since many Win98 and ME
users will be running with admin rights, this is a given. But this isn't
the fault of the OS per se, its another example of social engineering.

>Of those entries, the '445' ones are Windows viruses attempting to
>spread,

445 is Windows' filesharing port, and Win98 machines are promiscuously
chatty on it. The traffic is probably no more than chatty Win98 machines.

>I hate Windows. I really, really do.

Hating an OS is a bad idea. Its like hating tarmac, probably a sign of some
deeper problem...
(gd&r)

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bill Becker

"Martin Frey" <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slu2s09cm0rorphl3jvd80fcjqnhq9pg7f@4ax.com...
> The frequency of emails with viruses arriving on my PC has risen
> sharply in the last couple of months (nearly all called W32sober,
> though they are beginning to make me less than sober).
>
> Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
> doubling my online dialup time.
>
> Am I alone or is this general?
>
> Sorry OT but ...
>
> -----------------------------
> Martin Frey
> http://www.hadastro.org.uk
> N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
> -----------------------------

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by getting them in and
waiting while Norton does its thing.
My ISP filters out most of the spam and suspected virus containing emails
but a few do occasionally make it through. I see them in my outlook express
and I just delete them. What am I missing?

Best regards,
Bill

Tim Auton

"Bill Becker" <bbe51@rmisp.com> wrote:
>"Martin Frey" <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:slu2s09cm0rorphl3jvd80fcjqnhq9pg7f@4ax.com.. .
[spam+viruses]
>> Getting them in and waiting while Norton does its thing is practically
>> doubling my online dialup time.
>>
>> Am I alone or is this general?
>
>I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by getting them in and
>waiting while Norton does its thing.
>My ISP filters out most of the spam and suspected virus containing emails
>but a few do occasionally make it through. I see them in my outlook express
>and I just delete them. What am I missing?

The fact that Matin Frey's ISP doesn't do that? Or perhaps they can,
but Martin doesn't want the risk of false-positives?


Tim
--
This is not my signature.

Martin Frey

"Bill Becker" <bbe51@rmisp.com> wrote:

>My point is that I see the possible virus on OE and Norton doesn't have to
>do anything. I just delete the thing. Is he clicking on the message with the
>preview pane option enabled?

As a self taught internet user, I am very, very happy to learn that
I'm doing it wrong.

I click on send/receive in Outlook (not Outlook Express). My emails
come in and are all intercepted by Norton. Those with viruses are
quarantined and replace by Norton with a message that the original or
its attachment was infected. All this happens before I have an
opportunity to open the message (and I have to say it works - I have
been, and hope to remain, virus free.)

I'd love to be able to see the messages while still at the ISP in a
pain free way (I can do it through the web - but it takes longer than
just biting the bullet, downloading and letting Norton sort the wheat
from the crap)

Front gate seemed like a good idea but I haven't figured out how to
make it do what Graham W says it can do.

I get a lot of valid emails from people I've never heard of - so just
filtering out anyone not on my address list won't do - that would give
too many false positives.

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Bill Becker

"Martin Frey" <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2tt8s054sucko94op82016vp8rj2i237mh@4ax.com...
> "Bill Becker" <bbe51@rmisp.com> wrote:
>
>>My point is that I see the possible virus on OE and Norton doesn't have to
>>do anything. I just delete the thing. Is he clicking on the message with
>>the
>>preview pane option enabled?
>
> As a self taught internet user, I am very, very happy to learn that
> I'm doing it wrong.
>
> I click on send/receive in Outlook (not Outlook Express). My emails
> come in and are all intercepted by Norton. Those with viruses are
> quarantined and replace by Norton with a message that the original or
> its attachment was infected. All this happens before I have an
> opportunity to open the message (and I have to say it works - I have
> been, and hope to remain, virus free.)
>
> I'd love to be able to see the messages while still at the ISP in a
> pain free way (I can do it through the web - but it takes longer than
> just biting the bullet, downloading and letting Norton sort the wheat
> from the crap)
>
> Front gate seemed like a good idea but I haven't figured out how to
> make it do what Graham W says it can do.
>
> I get a lot of valid emails from people I've never heard of - so just
> filtering out anyone not on my address list won't do - that would give
> too many false positives.
>
> -----------------------------
> Martin Frey
> http://www.hadastro.org.uk
> N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
> -----------------------------

I've never used Outlook so I thank you for your explanation of how it works.

Best regards,
Bill

Martin Frey

"Graham W" <graham@his.com.puter.INVALID> wrote:

>Nor have I. But it can be used with OE (Outlook Express)
>for receiving email. The normal way to use Frontgayte is to use OE's
>'Send/Recv' or 'Sync All' buttons which causes Frontgate to pop up
>and get just the headers and show you a list in its Prompt Window.

Any particular settings on Frontate? I can see it sitting in my tray
and I have tried various settings but it never pops up of its own
accord (and is always empty when I pop it up from the tray).

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <32magcF3np4qgU2@individual.net>, dated Sat, 18 Dec
2004 22:22:15, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, Yokel
<yokel@surefish.co.uk> posted :

> ...
> and the suggestion made by another poster that (if
>possible) you have a personal e-mail account and use a "spam trap" (one
>which you let the messages to expire in) account for postings such as this
>mean that I now see little spam and virtually no viruses.
> ...

>"Yokel" now posts via a spam-trap account.
>Replace my alias with stevejudd to reply.


So "your" incoming spam goes, I suppose, to yokel@surefish.

If you have been properly issued with that identity, all well and good.

If no-one has yet been issued with that identity, then it ought now to
be unsellable - surefish may or may not mind.

If, say, Olaf Yokel gets himself issued with that identity, he will be
rightly displeased.

Spam-trap addresses should always be ones that one has permission to use
for that purpose.


Remember that there are two distinct types of E-address; <some>@host and
<all>@host. You have, I think, the former type, and can divert spam by
changing the left-part. That might annoy the "owner" of right-part, but
he'll often be big enough to deal with the matter effectively. But I,
however, have the latter type. That means that mail to <any>@merlyn is
aimed at me.

Current viruses address to <many>@host; so advice suitable for those
with either one of the two types of address is likely to be wholly
inappropriate for those with the other type.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME ©
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Martin Frey

My virus sender must be one of those nice moral christians - no virus
bearering emails received since Christmas Eve. At least he or she's
not one of those dreadful atheists who know not good from bad.

Either that or my wax model worked and his fingers dropped off.

The next few days will tell.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

Martin Frey

Martin Frey <martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> wrote:

>My virus sender must be one of those nice moral christians - no virus
>bearering emails received since Christmas Eve. At least he or she's
>not one of those dreadful atheists who know not good from bad.
>
>Either that or my wax model worked and his fingers dropped off.
>
>The next few days will tell.

He's started again - and not even 12th night. Virus bearing emails
amount to over 7Mb per month. Not the end of the world but not
negligible for a dial up like me either.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

Norman Silverstone

>
> He's started again - and not even 12th night. Virus bearing emails
> amount to over 7Mb per month. Not the end of the world but not
> negligible for a dial up like me either.
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin

I have not seen a virus containing email for several months,(touch wood
etc). This may be because I have all my mail through an organisation
called Pepperfish no spam no viruses. In addition, as a precaution, I use
Ubuntu a Linux based system.

Norman

Dr John Stockton

JRS: In article <33ilt0hchhkjanpvd4tkgc79d02gsprfaf@4ax.com>, dated
Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:26:52, seen in news:uk.sci.astronomy, Martin Frey
<martinfrey@snipclara.co.uk> posted :
>
>He's started again - and not even 12th night. Virus bearing emails
>amount to over 7Mb per month. Not the end of the world but not
>negligible for a dial up like me either.

You seem unexpectedly unpopular; 7MB is about 100 copies of the one that
I get offered about 300 copies of every time I connect; say 1000 or so
per day.

Turnpike rejects over 99% of them.

On second thoughts, the difference is because you only see stuff sent to
mf@ccy, whereas all sent to @mdcu are offered to me here.

OT can also stand for On Topic :
What is the angular resolution, for a matched pair of stars in good
seeing, for direct vision (naked eye or spectacles) by (i) a young
person with good, but not surprisingly good, eyesight; (b) the average
senescent amateur astronomer?

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Martin Frey

Dr John Stockton <spam@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>You seem unexpectedly unpopular; 7MB is about 100 copies of the one that
>I get offered about 300 copies of every time I connect; say 1000 or so
>per day.

Never been so happy to be unpopular - but pleased that it surprises
you.

>OT can also stand for On Topic :
>What is the angular resolution, for a matched pair of stars in good
>seeing, for direct vision (naked eye or spectacles) by (i) a young
>person with good, but not surprisingly good, eyesight;

Don't know

>(b) the average
>senescent amateur astronomer?

Depends on the alcohol content of the individual: a glass of wine
makes a lot more difference to my vision now than it did 10 years ago.
What do you do when two much loved hobbies clash head on?

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47