[main thread snipped, only anti-span subthread here] ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 19 Mar 1999 18:05:43 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 35 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 19 Mar 1999 18:08:11 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com Eric Smith wrote: > When IBM introduced the IBM 5100 Portable Computer in 1975, did > they publish any technical articles describing the implementation? bill_h writes: > PORTABLE? That mother weighed over fifty pounds! Yes, but the name (as visible on the little square nameplate) was "IBM 5100 Portable Computer". Presumably a fifty pound computer was *very* portable as compared to most IBM computers sold in 1975. > The manuals that accompanied them were pretty thorough....what you wanna > know? I'm told that the manuals didn't give too much insight into the actual implmentation technology, which is what I'm interested in. > If simply 'R' gets it bounced back, I never bother trying to find out > why. > I figure if a person don't even know who he is, I can't be bothered > either. Which is precisely why I was warning anyone that might have been trying to do me a favor by sending me a private reply. I'm perfectly happy to watch for replies in the newsgroup. > Get server that supports decent mail filters! I have yet to see a "decent mail filter" than can eliminate spam. If you know of one, I'm all ears. If you know how to write one, you can probably become very wealthy selling it. Eric ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 19 Mar 1999 23:28:14 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 35 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 19 Mar 1999 23:30:38 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com I wrote: > I have yet to see a "decent mail filter" than can eliminate spam. If > you know of one, I'm all ears. If you know how to write one, you can > probably become very wealthy selling it. David Scheidt writes: > In alt.folklore.computers Eric Smith wrote: > procmail. my rules file is only 160 lines, and it kills 90% of spam. I've been using procmail for quite a few years. I have over 500 lines of rules that someone else carefully crafted, and it only catches about 80% of the spam. I actually archive the spam I receive so that I can evaluate filters. > If I were willing to spend the time adding a couple more rules, it would be over > 95%. Yeah, sure, if I was willing to spend the time... My point was that there is no such thing as reliable spam filtering now, and I don't think that's likely to change in the near future. Which is why I *still* spam-proof my email address when I post to Usenet. I don't want to ruin *another* email address. Amazingly enough, I still get spam to an email address that I haven't actively used in four years, but the spammers haven't caught on to some that I've accidentally used without spamproofing this year. I guess all of that stuff about "Millions volume N" being recent addresses is bullshit. Not that I'm surprised. Actually the fact that I get some of the same spam to multiple addresses would be one of the most effective spam-filters, except that I would have to delay my incoming mail by about 12 hours to make it work. ###### Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> X-Disclaimer: Everything I write is false. Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 19 Mar 1999 23:30:14 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 8 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 NNTP-Posting-Host: ruckus.brouhaha.com X-Trace: 19 Mar 1999 23:32:37 -0800, ruckus.brouhaha.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!news.sgi.com!news.spies.com!ruckus.brouhaha.com seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) writes: > Second best is to transient-bounce messages with invalid DNS. You could just > bounce them, but there are so many morons who think NT can run name service > that you pretty much have to give them a chance to try again later. :) Why? Bouncing email from systems that have defficient name servers seems like a Good Thing. Maybe the sysadmins will get a clue and switch to using real software instead of RedmondWare. ###### From: David Scheidt Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? Date: 20 Mar 1999 05:54:50 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Lines: 16 Message-ID: <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.229.143.6 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.enteract.com!dscheidt In alt.folklore.computers Eric Smith wrote: : I have yet to see a "decent mail filter" than can eliminate spam. If : you know of one, I'm all ears. If you know how to write one, you can : probably become very wealthy selling it. procmail. my rules file is only 160 lines, and it kills 90% of spam. If I were willing to spend the time adding a couple more rules, it would be over 95%. David` -- David Scheidt The presumption of the flamers is, I assume, that folks barging in to AFU with tired old stories and off-topic drivel have already ignored the polite and subtle clues, and require a thwack with the clue-by-four. -- Andrew Reid ###### Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> Organization: Plethora . Net - More net, less spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test70 (17 January 1999) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 21 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 06:26:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.166.146.8 X-Trace: ptah.visi.com 921911186 205.166.146.8 (Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:26:26 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:26:26 CDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail In article <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com>, David Scheidt wrote: >procmail. my rules file is only 160 lines, and it kills 90% of spam. If I >were willing to spend the time adding a couple more rules, it would be over >95%. I've been stuck trying to avoid killing real mail, but yeah, you can get a *lot* of stuff. The best spam filter is probably the RBL; it's not just the direct effect, but the indirect one of squashing spammers and providing real incentives for companies with a problem to lose their problem. Second best is to transient-bounce messages with invalid DNS. You could just bounce them, but there are so many morons who think NT can run name service that you pretty much have to give them a chance to try again later. :) -s -- Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/ Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### From: cbh@REMOVE_THIS.teabag.demon.co.uk (Chris Hedley) Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? Date: 20 Mar 1999 10:41:23 GMT Organization: Honest Chris' Sysadmin Emporium Message-ID: <7cvu0j$87o$1@teabag.demon.co.uk> References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost X-NNTP-Posting-Host: teabag.demon.co.uk:193.237.4.110 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 921926718 nnrp-07:1453 NO-IDENT teabag.demon.co.uk:193.237.4.110 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.0 Lines: 11 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsfeed.eurocyber.net!news-fra.maz.net!diablo.theplanet.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!teabag.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail In article <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com>, David Scheidt writes: > procmail. my rules file is only 160 lines, and it kills 90% of spam. If I > were willing to spend the time adding a couple more rules, it would be over > 95%. Problem with procmail is that you still have to download the messages first, which costs money. It's preferable not to have to download them at all. Chris. ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? Date: 20 Mar 1999 20:19:05 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 29 Sender: neil@chonsp.franklin.ch Message-ID: <6u4sng6kba.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 David Scheidt writes: > > In alt.folklore.computers Eric Smith wrote: > : I have yet to see a "decent mail filter" than can eliminate spam. If > : you know of one, I'm all ears. If you know how to write one, you can > : probably become very wealthy selling it. > > procmail. my rules file is only 160 lines, and it kills 90% of spam. If I > were willing to spend the time adding a couple more rules, it would be over > 95%. 90% nuissance reduction would be great. I would like to see that file! At 160 Lines that is still within what can be posted to Usenet, particularly as there are most likely multiple people interested in it. If you don't want to post something that size you can send me a copy as email. -- Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ 20th century record companies fit the 21st century data highways as good as 19th century stagecoaches fit the 20th century freeways ###### From: Eivind Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 20:12:27 +0100 Organization: UNINETT news service Lines: 18 Sender: db96ek@solo.hib.no Message-ID: References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> Reply-To: ekj@vestdata.no NNTP-Posting-Host: solo.hib.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: snipp.uninett.no 921957413 5055 158.37.86.20 (20 Mar 1999 19:16:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@uninett.no In-Reply-To: <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!uio.no!uninett.no!solo.hib.no!db96ek On 20 Mar 1999, David Scheidt wrote: >procmail. my rules file is only 160 lines, and it kills 90% of spam. If I >were willing to spend the time adding a couple more rules, it would be over >95%. Bah. :0 * !^To:.*my@normal.address.* Probably-spam This rule _alone_ kills about 90% The main thingie to watch out for are mailinglists, wich generally have to set to something other than your email, and people who Bcc you. Eivind ###### From: David Scheidt Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: technical articles on IBM 5100 implementation? Date: 20 Mar 1999 20:39:35 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Lines: 33 Message-ID: <7d1127$lot$1@eve.enteract.com> References: <36F1C2AB.2908@sunsouthwest.com> <7cvd7a$dke$1@eve.enteract.com> <6u4sng6kba.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.229.143.6 CC: neil@franklin.ch Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.enteract.com!dscheidt In alt.folklore.computers Neil Franklin wrote: : David Scheidt writes: : > : 90% nuissance reduction would be great. : I would like to see that file! The basic idea is to make the default rule save to a junk box, or to /dev/null if you aren't worried about failures. Most spam hasn't a proper To: header, so by pulling everything that does, you are getting most of your personal mail. Most mailing lists bcc: the list, so they don't have a To: header either, and need to be dealt with specially, which is no hardship, since you probably want to sort them to their own folders anyway. I save everything that falls through to a junk mailbox, because a spam filter that kills real mail is unacceptable, so I also have a small number of rules that outright kill stuff I know is going to be spam (To:friend, To:*aol.com, Subject:STOP PAYING TAX, etc). A refinement I haven't gotten around to is an inbox for mail that isn't on a list of known addresses. Since most of the mail I get is from people I have gotten mail from in the past, spam with a valid To: would end up here, and not in my main inbox. : -- : Neil Franklin, Nerd, Geek, Unix Guru, Hacker, Mystic : neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ : 20th century record companies fit the 21st century data highways : as good as 19th century stagecoaches fit the 20th century freeways -- dscheidt@enteract.com I'm sorry, I've quite run out of Wittgenstein ObULs. -- D.M. Procida