Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Delay to reply ?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Delay to reply ?
Denis Beauregard wrote:
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
-
J. Hugh Sullivan
Re: Delay to reply ?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:03:34 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:
Why don't you use a program like Mail Washer to view e-mail on site,
bounce or delete as desired and download the rest to Outlook or
whatever?
Once you bounce an address it's deleted before you see it from that
time forward.
Hugh
wrote:
Denis Beauregard wrote:
Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
Why don't you use a program like Mail Washer to view e-mail on site,
bounce or delete as desired and download the rest to Outlook or
whatever?
Once you bounce an address it's deleted before you see it from that
time forward.
Hugh
-
Denis Beauregard
Re: Delay to reply ?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:04:32 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
Until recently (i.e. this morning), my spam was trapped
on the server. It is now sent to my mailbox. The set up
was changed at the web host.
I can delete emails by the address, subject title, etc. but
most spam from spamming domains is already deleted before I
can see it and most other spams have random emails.
Denis
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
Why don't you use a program like Mail Washer to view e-mail on site,
bounce or delete as desired and download the rest to Outlook or
whatever?
Once you bounce an address it's deleted before you see it from that
time forward.
Until recently (i.e. this morning), my spam was trapped
on the server. It is now sent to my mailbox. The set up
was changed at the web host.
I can delete emails by the address, subject title, etc. but
most spam from spamming domains is already deleted before I
can see it and most other spams have random emails.
Denis
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Delay to reply ?
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
Gosh Hugh. I was only trying to point something out to Denis, not asking
for suggestions on how to handle my email. I guess my last sentence was
misleading & unnecessary - please forget I said it.
Why would I want to add a level of work & complexity to reading email?
I've been using this POP email package which is the best there's ever been
for ~8 years and am quite happy with it.
Shrug.
Bob
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:03:34 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
Denis Beauregard wrote:
Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
Gosh Hugh. I was only trying to point something out to Denis, not asking
for suggestions on how to handle my email. I guess my last sentence was
misleading & unnecessary - please forget I said it.
Why don't you use a program like Mail Washer to view e-mail on site,
bounce or delete as desired and download the rest to Outlook or
whatever?
Why would I want to add a level of work & complexity to reading email?
I've been using this POP email package which is the best there's ever been
for ~8 years and am quite happy with it.
Once you bounce an address it's deleted before you see it from that
time forward.
Shrug.
Bob
-
J. Hugh Sullivan
Re: Delay to reply ?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:29:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm always looking for something better. So when you posted I replied
mostly to see what I might be missing.
I have mixed emotions about adding a level when I could simply use my
delete key but it does block a lot of the spam I would get otherwise.
Hugh
wrote:
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:03:34 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
Denis Beauregard wrote:
Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
Gosh Hugh. I was only trying to point something out to Denis, not asking
for suggestions on how to handle my email. I guess my last sentence was
misleading & unnecessary - please forget I said it.
I'm always looking for something better. So when you posted I replied
mostly to see what I might be missing.
I have mixed emotions about adding a level when I could simply use my
delete key but it does block a lot of the spam I would get otherwise.
Hugh
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Delay to reply ?
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
Comcast, my ISP, traps a whole big bunch before I even see it, although I can
use the webmail interface if I wish to look at it before it cycles to that
trash. Then when it gets to me, I have filters set up in Netscape that trap
the overwhelming majority. The net result is that I get very little spam in my
real Inbox. The rest is filtered automatically to Trash and I do look at that
just in case. I'm always analyzing the few that get through for ways to
improve my filters. That's one reason for WordPad.
Bob
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:29:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:03:34 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
Denis Beauregard wrote:
Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
Gosh Hugh. I was only trying to point something out to Denis, not asking
for suggestions on how to handle my email. I guess my last sentence was
misleading & unnecessary - please forget I said it.
I'm always looking for something better. So when you posted I replied
mostly to see what I might be missing.
I have mixed emotions about adding a level when I could simply use my
delete key but it does block a lot of the spam I would get otherwise.
Comcast, my ISP, traps a whole big bunch before I even see it, although I can
use the webmail interface if I wish to look at it before it cycles to that
trash. Then when it gets to me, I have filters set up in Netscape that trap
the overwhelming majority. The net result is that I get very little spam in my
real Inbox. The rest is filtered automatically to Trash and I do look at that
just in case. I'm always analyzing the few that get through for ways to
improve my filters. That's one reason for WordPad.
Bob
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Delay to reply ?
Robert Heiling wrote:
I read this and see that it could be misunderstood. It should read to the effect
that " Then when the email, minus the spam that Comcast has trapped, gets to me,
"
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 19:29:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 18:03:34 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:
Denis Beauregard wrote:
Some email I received today:
To: ***
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:19 -0700
[...]
Email is now slower than snail mail...
Denis
Beware! The ones I've seen like that have been spam and could contain
malware. I open anything suspicious in WordPad so as to be safe from
viruses.
Bob
Gosh Hugh. I was only trying to point something out to Denis, not asking
for suggestions on how to handle my email. I guess my last sentence was
misleading & unnecessary - please forget I said it.
I'm always looking for something better. So when you posted I replied
mostly to see what I might be missing.
I have mixed emotions about adding a level when I could simply use my
delete key but it does block a lot of the spam I would get otherwise.
Comcast, my ISP, traps a whole big bunch before I even see it, although I can
use the webmail interface if I wish to look at it before it cycles to that
trash. Then when it gets to me,
I read this and see that it could be misunderstood. It should read to the effect
that " Then when the email, minus the spam that Comcast has trapped, gets to me,
"
I have filters set up in Netscape that trap
the overwhelming majority. The net result is that I get very little spam in my
real Inbox. The rest is filtered automatically to Trash and I do look at that
just in case. I'm always analyzing the few that get through for ways to
improve my filters. That's one reason for WordPad.
Bob
-
J. Hugh Sullivan
Re: Delay to reply ?
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:13:07 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:
I don't think Adelphia traps spam. Using an altered e-mail address on
news groups eliminates most of mine.
I think data mining spyware in cookies is my main source of spam now.
Even Ad-Aware didn't eliminate all of it - the new Ad-Aware SE is much
better but it's not an automatic upgrade.
Although none of this mentions the word "genealogy" I'd think it would
be topical to some genealogists.
Hugh
wrote:
Comcast, my ISP, traps a whole big bunch before I even see it, although I can
use the webmail interface if I wish to look at it before it cycles to that
trash. Then when it gets to me, I have filters set up in Netscape that trap
the overwhelming majority. The net result is that I get very little spam in my
real Inbox. The rest is filtered automatically to Trash and I do look at that
just in case. I'm always analyzing the few that get through for ways to
improve my filters. That's one reason for WordPad.
Bob
I don't think Adelphia traps spam. Using an altered e-mail address on
news groups eliminates most of mine.
I think data mining spyware in cookies is my main source of spam now.
Even Ad-Aware didn't eliminate all of it - the new Ad-Aware SE is much
better but it's not an automatic upgrade.
Although none of this mentions the word "genealogy" I'd think it would
be topical to some genealogists.
Hugh
-
Robert Heiling
Re: Delay to reply ?
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
Strangely enough, the old version broke on me. One day, my definitions file was
reported to be corrupt and anything new that I downloaded had a very old date.
Reinstalling it didn't fix the problem, so that's when I went back to the website
and found that SE was available. I downloaded that free version and run that now on
occasion.
Bob
snip
I think data mining spyware in cookies is my main source of spam now.
Even Ad-Aware didn't eliminate all of it - the new Ad-Aware SE is much
better but it's not an automatic upgrade.
Strangely enough, the old version broke on me. One day, my definitions file was
reported to be corrupt and anything new that I downloaded had a very old date.
Reinstalling it didn't fix the problem, so that's when I went back to the website
and found that SE was available. I downloaded that free version and run that now on
occasion.
Bob
-
Allen
Re: Delay to reply ?
Robert Heiling wrote:
I had the same experience with Ad-Aware--definitions were reported as
corrupt. I downloaded SE and it works OK now. However, I also have
SpyBot Search and Destroy and it seems to me marginally better than
Ad-Aware, though I really can't say there is very much difference. The
price is right for both programs, though; that's the only reason that I
use both.
Allen
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
snip
I think data mining spyware in cookies is my main source of spam now.
Even Ad-Aware didn't eliminate all of it - the new Ad-Aware SE is much
better but it's not an automatic upgrade.
Strangely enough, the old version broke on me. One day, my definitions file was
reported to be corrupt and anything new that I downloaded had a very old date.
Reinstalling it didn't fix the problem, so that's when I went back to the website
and found that SE was available. I downloaded that free version and run that now on
occasion.
Bob
I had the same experience with Ad-Aware--definitions were reported as
corrupt. I downloaded SE and it works OK now. However, I also have
SpyBot Search and Destroy and it seems to me marginally better than
Ad-Aware, though I really can't say there is very much difference. The
price is right for both programs, though; that's the only reason that I
use both.
Allen
-
J. Hugh Sullivan
Re: Delay to reply ?
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:43:27 GMT, Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
might be a bit better.
Hugh
Robert Heiling wrote:
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
snip
I think data mining spyware in cookies is my main source of spam now.
Even Ad-Aware didn't eliminate all of it - the new Ad-Aware SE is much
better but it's not an automatic upgrade.
Strangely enough, the old version broke on me. One day, my definitions file was
reported to be corrupt and anything new that I downloaded had a very old date.
Reinstalling it didn't fix the problem, so that's when I went back to the website
and found that SE was available. I downloaded that free version and run that now on
occasion.
Bob
I had the same experience with Ad-Aware--definitions were reported as
corrupt. I downloaded SE and it works OK now. However, I also have
SpyBot Search and Destroy and it seems to me marginally better than
Ad-Aware, though I really can't say there is very much difference. The
price is right for both programs, though; that's the only reason that I
use both.
Allen
The reviews I read find them about equal but suggest running both
might be a bit better.
Hugh
-
Paul Blair
Re: Delay to reply ?
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Be brave! Turn off *all* cookies. You will find it makes very little
difference - well, in my world you'd hardly notice the difference. Turn
them on one-time if you really must go to some particular site.
After a month, things got real quiet....
Paul Blair
Canberra
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:43:27 GMT, Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:
"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:
snip
I think data mining spyware in cookies is my main source of spam now.
Even Ad-Aware didn't eliminate all of it - the new Ad-Aware SE is much
better but it's not an automatic upgrade.
Strangely enough, the old version broke on me. One day, my definitions file was
reported to be corrupt and anything new that I downloaded had a very old date.
Reinstalling it didn't fix the problem, so that's when I went back to the website
and found that SE was available. I downloaded that free version and run that now on
occasion.
Bob
I had the same experience with Ad-Aware--definitions were reported as
corrupt. I downloaded SE and it works OK now. However, I also have
SpyBot Search and Destroy and it seems to me marginally better than
Ad-Aware, though I really can't say there is very much difference. The
price is right for both programs, though; that's the only reason that I
use both.
Allen
The reviews I read find them about equal but suggest running both
might be a bit better.
Hugh
Be brave! Turn off *all* cookies. You will find it makes very little
difference - well, in my world you'd hardly notice the difference. Turn
them on one-time if you really must go to some particular site.
After a month, things got real quiet....
Paul Blair
Canberra