Discussion:
How To Defeat SPAM
(too old to reply)
Jay Garcia
2014-10-21 23:37:37 UTC
Permalink
How To Defeat SPAM ----

You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
application level.

Jay
Good Guy
2014-10-22 01:18:16 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/2014 00:37, Jay Garcia wrote:
> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>
> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
> application level.
>
> Jay

The only way and the best way to control spam is to redirect all your
emails to GMAIL or Outlook.com and then use TB to download from them.
GMAIL and outlook seems to have the best spam filter around.
WaltS48
2014-10-22 01:38:12 UTC
Permalink
On 10/21/2014 09:18 PM, Good Guy wrote:
> On 22/10/2014 00:37, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>
>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>> application level.
>>
>> Jay
>
> The only way and the best way to control spam is to redirect all your
> emails to GMAIL or Outlook.com and then use TB to download from them.
> GMAIL and outlook seems to have the best spam filter around.
>
>


My ISP is very good at catching whatever comes my way.

--
Sponsored by Firefox 34.0b1 and Thunderbird 31.2.0
GO Steelers, Pitt, Pens, Bills and Sabres!
Go to Hell Day <http://youtu.be/XzIx08AVe6M>
Chasing tabs in my browser :)
Jay Garcia
2014-10-22 03:07:49 UTC
Permalink
On 21.10.2014 20:38, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 09:18 PM, Good Guy wrote:
>> On 22/10/2014 00:37, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>
>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>> application level.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>
>> The only way and the best way to control spam is to redirect all your
>> emails to GMAIL or Outlook.com and then use TB to download from them.
>> GMAIL and outlook seems to have the best spam filter around.
>>
>>
>
>
> My ISP is very good at catching whatever comes my way.
>

I've been running my own server for years and use whatever resources are
included, like SpamAssassin, ClamAV, RBLS and so forth. My connection
provider is COX and my @cox.net address receives very little spam.

Jay
The Real Bev
2014-10-26 16:47:22 UTC
Permalink
On 10/21/2014 08:07 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 21.10.2014 20:38, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 10/21/2014 09:18 PM, Good Guy wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2014 00:37, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>>
>>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>>> application level.
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>
>>> The only way and the best way to control spam is to redirect all your
>>> emails to GMAIL or Outlook.com and then use TB to download from them.
>>> GMAIL and outlook seems to have the best spam filter around.

What he said, except for the bit about outlook, of which I have no
knowledge.

>> My ISP is very good at catching whatever comes my way.
>
> I've been running my own server for years and use whatever resources are
> included, like SpamAssassin, ClamAV, RBLS and so forth. My connection
> provider is COX and my @cox.net address receives very little spam.

What if you automatically forward the jaygarcia.com mail to your gmail
account and then download it from there?

I leave the mail in my personal account at the gmail site until I delete
it there, which I consider belt+suspenders safety against loss of
something I really want to keep.

Missed you.

--
Cheers, Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
EE
2014-10-22 19:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Jay Garcia wrote:
> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>
> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
> application level.
>
> Jay
>
You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
care of part of the hassle, at least.
Bob Henson
2014-10-22 19:47:22 UTC
Permalink
On 22/10/2014 8:34 PM, EE wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>
>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>> application level.
>>
>> Jay
>>
> You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
> care of part of the hassle, at least.
>

Not very well though, in the case of Thunderbird. I have tried more than
once to train it, on different setups and O/Ss too - but it catches very
little spam at all. This time I have persevered with marking mails for
much longer - to no avail - most spam still doesn't get filtered out.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Forced to choose between two evils - pick the one you haven't tried before!
Ron Hunter
2014-10-23 00:15:14 UTC
Permalink
On 10/22/2014 2:47 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 22/10/2014 8:34 PM, EE wrote:
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>
>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>> application level.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>> You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
>> care of part of the hassle, at least.
>>
>
> Not very well though, in the case of Thunderbird. I have tried more than
> once to train it, on different setups and O/Ss too - but it catches very
> little spam at all. This time I have persevered with marking mails for
> much longer - to no avail - most spam still doesn't get filtered out.
>
It sometimes takes a few attempts at marking things 'junk' before they
get filtered. Also, some sites are very well aware of how to work
around Baysian Filtering.
Bob Henson
2014-10-23 09:04:45 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/2014 1:15 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 10/22/2014 2:47 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>> On 22/10/2014 8:34 PM, EE wrote:
>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>>
>>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>>> application level.
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>> You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
>>> care of part of the hassle, at least.
>>>
>>
>> Not very well though, in the case of Thunderbird. I have tried more than
>> once to train it, on different setups and O/Ss too - but it catches very
>> little spam at all. This time I have persevered with marking mails for
>> much longer - to no avail - most spam still doesn't get filtered out.
>>
> It sometimes takes a few attempts at marking things 'junk' before they
> get filtered. Also, some sites are very well aware of how to work
> around Baysian Filtering.
>

I'm persevering, Ron, but not very hopeful. I've marked a couple of
hundred "Not Spam" messages and I get no false positives, so I'm just
marking SPAM now.

Come back Spampal - all is forgiven. I hardly got any once I had got
that running well, but as it is no longer developed I don't suppose it
will ever be made to work with SSL connections. Spamihilator does, but
it won't just stamp the messages as spam so I can handle them within
Thunderbird, it insists on dumping them in it's own sandbox - and
checking two programs is a total waste of time. The whole point of an
anti-spam program is that after a probationary period of time you can
set it to delete the spam unseen - if you have to check it yourself, you
may as well just delete the spam manually as it comes in.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Forced to choose between two evils - pick the one you haven't tried before!
Mike Easter
2014-10-23 22:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Bob Henson wrote:
> Come back Spampal - all is forgiven.

Back when I used to have to manage spam, SpamPal was the ticket.

Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
need SpamPal anymore.

I don't have any experience with other email providers who might have
excellent filtering. I have significant experience with providers who
do NOT have excellent filtering, such as EarthLink.

One good thing about EL's filtering was that it was very configurable,
no filtering, or medium, or high; but there were problems with the
default high which had challenge-response, but you could turn that off.

The medium was leaky, so one needed to supplement the filtering with
such as SpamPal. High filtering was whitelisted mail only in the inbox
leaving EL ID/ed spam in the spam folder and non-whitelisted non-spam in
the suspicious.

I had accounts which I turned off EL filtering and used SpamPal to move
all the spam into a spam folder which I used for quick reporting to
SpamCop. Feeding SpamCop contributed to my SpamPal blocklist. I had
accounts which I used EL high filtering because I only wanted the
whitelisted mail.

--
Mike Easter
Bob Henson
2014-10-24 08:26:05 UTC
Permalink
On 23/10/2014 11:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Bob Henson wrote:
>> Come back Spampal - all is forgiven.
>
> Back when I used to have to manage spam, SpamPal was the ticket.
>
> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
> need SpamPal anymore.
>

I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
I can see it. That's the deal breaker for me. I have actually
re-installed Spamihilator following this and other recent chats on the
topic - this time I'll give it a long fair trial. Whilst it doesn't do
all that I want, if I spend time training it now, in theory I will
eventually be able to leave it to it's own devices and check it very
infrequently. So far, so good.


--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill
Mike Easter
2014-10-24 16:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Bob Henson wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>> need SpamPal anymore.
>
> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
> I can see it.

Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.

The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
for inspection.

BUT...

... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
spam folder.

You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.


--
Mike Easter
Bob Henson
2014-10-24 18:19:00 UTC
Permalink
On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Bob Henson wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>
>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>> I can see it.
>
> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>
> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
> for inspection.
>
> BUT...
>
> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
> spam folder.
>
> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>
>

I don't use IMAP, and never will. I use several e-mail domains on more
than one host server, and going to different local machines, so routing
them all via Gmail is not really an option, on reflection.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

I went for a medical and asked the doctor, "How do I stand?" He said,
"That's what puzzles me too!"
rebro
2014-10-24 18:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>
>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>
>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>> I can see it.
>>
>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>
>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>> for inspection.
>>
>> BUT...
>>
>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>> spam folder.
>>
>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>
>>
>
> I don't use IMAP, and never will.


This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
reasons?
Bob Henson
2014-10-24 19:46:30 UTC
Permalink
On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>
>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>> I can see it.
>>>
>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>
>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>> for inspection.
>>>
>>> BUT...
>>>
>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>> spam folder.
>>>
>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>
>
> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
> reasons?
>

Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
than enough :-)

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

You know you're old when an "allnighter" means you didn't have to go to
the loo once!
rebro
2014-10-24 19:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Am 24.10.2014 um 21:46 schrieb Bob Henson:
> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>> for inspection.
>>>>
>>>> BUT...
>>>>
>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>> spam folder.
>>>>
>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>
>>
>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>> reasons?
>>
>
> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
> than enough :-)
>

Thanks.
F***@NOSPAMpobox.com
2014-10-24 22:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On 10/24/2014 12:46 PM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard

> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>> I can see it.
>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>> for inspection.
>>>>
>>>> BUT...
>>>>
>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>> spam folder.
>>>>
>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>
>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>> reasons?
>>
>
> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
> than enough :-)
>

It does a lot more than POP, mainly being able to access all of your
folders from any machine, unlike POP access for the Inbox only.




--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Bob Henson
2014-10-25 11:06:17 UTC
Permalink
On 24/10/2014 11:42 PM, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 12:46 PM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>
>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>> reasons?
>>>
>>
>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>> than enough :-)
>>
>
> It does a lot more than POP, mainly being able to access all of your
> folders from any machine, unlike POP access for the Inbox only.
>
>
>
>

I've never seen any use for that - new mail is in the Inbox, and
anything else I want is on my local machine/s.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill
F***@NOSPAMpobox.com
2014-10-26 20:17:01 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 4:06 AM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard

> On 24/10/2014 11:42 PM, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>> On 10/24/2014 12:46 PM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>> reasons?
>>>>
>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>> than enough :-)
>>>
>> It does a lot more than POP, mainly being able to access all of your
>> folders from any machine, unlike POP access for the Inbox only.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I've never seen any use for that - new mail is in the Inbox, and
> anything else I want is on my local machine/s.
>

Then if you don't have a smartphone or tablet, and only deal with your
Inbox, POP is fine I guess. I just don't know anyone who lives in their
Inbox.

What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.




--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Ant
2014-10-27 02:02:40 UTC
Permalink
On 10/26/2014 1:17 PM PT, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com typed:
> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.

Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's copies?
--
"Why would you want a glow in the dark ant farm?" --Leonard; "They do
some of their best work at night." --Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory
S4E4 (The Hot Troll Deviation).
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-27 07:17:29 UTC
Permalink
On 10/26/2014 9:02 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 10/26/2014 1:17 PM PT, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com typed:
>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>
> Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's copies?

If you don't delete the server copy of your POP mail, it will fill up
the space allocated by the ISP, and then you will get rejected mail
messages sent to your correspondents. Not a good situation.
Well, maybe not all bad, either. Grin.
Daniel
2014-10-27 12:01:08 UTC
Permalink
On 27/10/14 18:17, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 10/26/2014 9:02 PM, Ant wrote:
>> On 10/26/2014 1:17 PM PT, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com typed:
>>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
>>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
>>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>>
>> Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's copies?
>
> If you don't delete the server copy of your POP mail, it will fill up
> the space allocated by the ISP, and then you will get rejected mail
> messages sent to your correspondents. Not a good situation.
> Well, maybe not all bad, either. Grin.
>
And, of course, any spammers that hit your full POP mail account will
*also* get rejection notices, showing that your e-mail account is a
*real* account :-(

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.30 Build identifier: 20141009214701
Ant
2014-10-27 14:03:03 UTC
Permalink
On 10/27/2014 12:17 AM PT, Ron Hunter typed:

>>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
>>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
>>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>>
>> Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's copies?
>
> If you don't delete the server copy of your POP mail, it will fill up
> the space allocated by the ISP, and then you will get rejected mail
> messages sent to your correspondents. Not a good situation.
> Well, maybe not all bad, either. Grin.

Do people really fill up their e-mails that much? These days, they're
huge compared to a decade ago.
--
"When many work together for a goal, great things may be accomplished.
It is said a lion cub was killed by a single colony of ants." --Saskya
Pandita
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-27 15:34:06 UTC
Permalink
On 10/27/2014 9:03 AM, Ant wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 12:17 AM PT, Ron Hunter typed:
>
>>>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
>>>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your
>>>> mail
>>>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>>>
>>> Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's
>>> copies?
>>
>> If you don't delete the server copy of your POP mail, it will fill up
>> the space allocated by the ISP, and then you will get rejected mail
>> messages sent to your correspondents. Not a good situation.
>> Well, maybe not all bad, either. Grin.
>
> Do people really fill up their e-mails that much? These days, they're
> huge compared to a decade ago.
All it takes is a friend uploading a few photos, and videos, and your 5
to 10 meg of POP storage on the server is exhausted, and further email
is 'bounced'.
Ed Mullen
2014-10-28 02:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Ron Hunter wrote on 10/27/2014 11:34 AM:
> On 10/27/2014 9:03 AM, Ant wrote:
>> On 10/27/2014 12:17 AM PT, Ron Hunter typed:
>>
>>>>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie,
>>>>> but if
>>>>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your
>>>>> mail
>>>>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>>>>
>>>> Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's
>>>> copies?
>>>
>>> If you don't delete the server copy of your POP mail, it will fill up
>>> the space allocated by the ISP, and then you will get rejected mail
>>> messages sent to your correspondents. Not a good situation.
>>> Well, maybe not all bad, either. Grin.
>>
>> Do people really fill up their e-mails that much? These days, they're
>> huge compared to a decade ago.
> All it takes is a friend uploading a few photos, and videos, and your 5
> to 10 meg of POP storage on the server is exhausted, and further email
> is 'bounced'.
>

It would be helpful to post your ISP. Some of us do not have this issue.

Me? Comcast, 30 Mb/s.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
The Real Bev
2014-11-03 20:51:26 UTC
Permalink
On 10/27/2014 08:34 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 9:03 AM, Ant wrote:
>>
>> Do people really fill up their e-mails that much? These days,
>> they're huge compared to a decade ago.
>
> All it takes is a friend uploading a few photos, and videos, and your
> 5 to 10 meg of POP storage on the server is exhausted, and further
> email is 'bounced'.

Back when my mom was on dialup, she told me she hadn't been able to
receive any email for WEEKS. I went to the mail website and found that
a friend's son had sent her a 2-MB picture of a Christmas tree. Every
time she logged in (only an hour a day, and then she shut down and
turned the machine off) a bit more of the damn thing got downloaded, but
nothing else could get past it. I deleted the damn thing and counseled
the kid (at 55 he should have known better!) soundly about the head and
shoulders and he promised to not send my mom any more
inspiration/friendly/funny/TEDIOUS crap.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.
Daniel
2014-11-04 11:37:55 UTC
Permalink
On 04/11/14 07:51, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 08:34 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/27/2014 9:03 AM, Ant wrote:
>>>
>>> Do people really fill up their e-mails that much? These days,
>>> they're huge compared to a decade ago.
> >
>> All it takes is a friend uploading a few photos, and videos, and your
>> 5 to 10 meg of POP storage on the server is exhausted, and further
>> email is 'bounced'.
>
> Back when my mom was on dialup, she told me she hadn't been able to
> receive any email for WEEKS. I went to the mail website and found that
> a friend's son had sent her a 2-MB picture of a Christmas tree. Every
> time she logged in (only an hour a day, and then she shut down and
> turned the machine off) a bit more of the damn thing got downloaded, but
> nothing else could get past it. I deleted the damn thing and counseled
> the kid (at 55 he should have known better!) soundly about the head and
> shoulders and he promised to not send my mom any more
> inspiration/friendly/funny/TEDIOUS crap.
>
Gee!! I wish my relo's would listen!! Maybe I need to get you on to them!!

I'm forever telling the Relo's that my mailbox is only 500kB ....
doesn't stop them sending me MB or more photos, which costs (poor,
unemployed) me extra money!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.30 Build identifier: 20141009214701
The Real Bev
2014-11-04 17:42:00 UTC
Permalink
On 11/04/2014 03:37 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 04/11/14 07:51, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 10/27/2014 08:34 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2014 9:03 AM, Ant wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do people really fill up their e-mails that much? These days,
>>>> they're huge compared to a decade ago.
>> >
>>> All it takes is a friend uploading a few photos, and videos, and your
>>> 5 to 10 meg of POP storage on the server is exhausted, and further
>>> email is 'bounced'.
>>
>> Back when my mom was on dialup, she told me she hadn't been able to
>> receive any email for WEEKS. I went to the mail website and found that
>> a friend's son had sent her a 2-MB picture of a Christmas tree. Every
>> time she logged in (only an hour a day, and then she shut down and
>> turned the machine off) a bit more of the damn thing got downloaded, but
>> nothing else could get past it. I deleted the damn thing and counseled
>> the kid (at 55 he should have known better!) soundly about the head and
>> shoulders and he promised to not send my mom any more
>> inspiration/friendly/funny/TEDIOUS crap.
>>
> Gee!! I wish my relo's would listen!! Maybe I need to get you on to them!!
>
> I'm forever telling the Relo's that my mailbox is only 500kB ....
> doesn't stop them sending me MB or more photos, which costs (poor,
> unemployed) me extra money!!

Do they know how angry this makes you? A 3-minute rant ending with a
deep breath and a half-assed apology might work wonders. Suggest that
they put their crap on picasaweb or flickr or dropbox or WHATEVER so
that everyone can enjoy them.

Picasaweb (or google photos, which is the same thing looked at in a
slightly different way) is a decent way of sharing photos, and the
picasa photo editor (at least the one I use at home, I haven't tried
editing anything at the site) is pretty good for most of the stuff you
want to fix.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
Bluetooth is especially problematic in San Francisco, because it
makes it nearly impossible to tell who is hearing voices and who
is just talking on the phone, and in this city their numbers
seem about equal. --Shaun Nichols
The Real Bev
2014-10-27 20:10:38 UTC
Permalink
On 10/26/2014 07:02 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 10/26/2014 1:17 PM PT, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com typed:
>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>
> Even if you tell your e-mail client to not to delete the server's copies?

It's still there, but you have to disable and then re-enable POP to
download it again.

I back up my entire system every couple of weeks (I know, I should do it
more often) to other partitions and both internal and external drives on
a rotating basis. I have 12, going back to March 2014. I'm going to do
another one right away while I'm thinking of it.

--
Cheers, Bev
============================================
Buckle Up. It makes it harder for the aliens
to suck you out of your car.
Daniel
2014-10-28 07:08:25 UTC
Permalink
On 28/10/14 07:10, The Real Bev wrote:

<Snip>

> I'm going to do another one right away while I'm thinking of it.

Been eleven hours, Bev, so did you do it yet?? ;-P

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.30 Build identifier: 20141009214701
The Real Bev
2014-11-03 20:58:23 UTC
Permalink
On 10/28/2014 12:08 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 28/10/14 07:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > I'm going to do another one right away while I'm thinking of it.
>
> Been eleven hours, Bev, so did you do it yet?? ;-P

Yup. All 320 GB! It takes a long time. Not this long, of course.
Maybe 12 hours to the external drives and half that to the internal
drives on which my working partition isn't.

I've been busy :-(

Had a cataract done last Wednesday. Better, and then suddenly not as
good. Going to see the optodoc tomorrow.

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
Daniel
2014-11-04 11:41:03 UTC
Permalink
On 04/11/14 07:58, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 12:08 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 28/10/14 07:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> > I'm going to do another one right away while I'm thinking of it.
>>
>> Been eleven hours, Bev, so did you do it yet?? ;-P
>
> Yup. All 320 GB! It takes a long time. Not this long, of course.
> Maybe 12 hours to the external drives and half that to the internal
> drives on which my working partition isn't.
>
> I've been busy :-(
>
> Had a cataract done last Wednesday. Better, and then suddenly not as
> good. Going to see the optodoc tomorrow.
>
So, "you can see clearly, now" (Apologise to the song!!), then, Bev :-)

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:33.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.30 Build identifier: 20141009214701
The Real Bev
2014-11-04 17:37:38 UTC
Permalink
On 11/04/2014 03:41 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 04/11/14 07:58, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 10/28/2014 12:08 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> On 28/10/14 07:10, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm going to do another one right away while I'm thinking of it.
>>>
>>> Been eleven hours, Bev, so did you do it yet?? ;-P
>>
>> Yup. All 320 GB! It takes a long time. Not this long, of course.
>> Maybe 12 hours to the external drives and half that to the internal
>> drives on which my working partition isn't.
>>
>> I've been busy :-(
>>
>> Had a cataract done last Wednesday. Better, and then suddenly not as
>> good. Going to see the optodoc tomorrow.
>>
> So, "you can see clearly, now" (Apologise to the song!!), then, Bev :-)

Pfaugh!

This pisses me off. It was really good and then it wasn't. It took
about an hour and parts of the process (a) felt like the worst
eyelash-in-your-eye that anyone has ever had and (2) felt like she was
using a crowbar to do something in there. "Conscious sedation" is a
good thing, and I'm really glad that telling the anaesthesiologist that
you really don't want to spend the next two days vomiting works.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
Bluetooth is especially problematic in San Francisco, because it
makes it nearly impossible to tell who is hearing voices and who
is just talking on the phone, and in this city their numbers
seem about equal. --Shaun Nichols
Bob Henson
2014-10-27 09:58:04 UTC
Permalink
On 26/10/2014 8:17 PM, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 4:06 AM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 24/10/2014 11:42 PM, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2014 12:46 PM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>
>>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>>> reasons?
>>>>>
>>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>>> than enough :-)
>>>>
>>> It does a lot more than POP, mainly being able to access all of your
>>> folders from any machine, unlike POP access for the Inbox only.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I've never seen any use for that - new mail is in the Inbox, and
>> anything else I want is on my local machine/s.
>>
>
> Then if you don't have a smartphone or tablet, and only deal with your
> Inbox, POP is fine I guess. I just don't know anyone who lives in their
> Inbox.

I do have a smartphone (we have three between us) and a tablet - two PCs
and three laptops between us too. They have all the interconnectivity we
need, without using IMAP, although I think Sue's work phone may be set
to use IMAP - I don't set that one up, or it wouldn't be.


> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>

I don't keep mail. I read it, action it, and delete it. On the rare
occasions when there are data I need to keep, I have a separate
directory, which I back up separately from time to time. Copies of that
are on "the cloud" in three different places, and my both PCs are backed
up onto separate USB drives -- all automatic - I don't have to do a thing.


--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.
The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
- Winston Churchill
F***@NOSPAMpobox.com
2014-10-27 17:34:32 UTC
Permalink
On 10/27/2014 2:58 AM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard

> On 26/10/2014 8:17 PM, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>> On 10/25/2014 4:06 AM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> On 24/10/2014 11:42 PM, ***@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2014 12:46 PM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>>>> reasons?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>>>> than enough :-)
>>>>>
>>>> It does a lot more than POP, mainly being able to access all of your
>>>> folders from any machine, unlike POP access for the Inbox only.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've never seen any use for that - new mail is in the Inbox, and
>>> anything else I want is on my local machine/s.
>>>
>> Then if you don't have a smartphone or tablet, and only deal with your
>> Inbox, POP is fine I guess. I just don't know anyone who lives in their
>> Inbox.
>
> I do have a smartphone (we have three between us) and a tablet - two PCs
> and three laptops between us too. They have all the interconnectivity we
> need, without using IMAP, although I think Sue's work phone may be set
> to use IMAP - I don't set that one up, or it wouldn't be.
>

I think you mentioned elsewhere none of them connect at the same time.
With IMAP, it doesn't matter, all your devices can be kept up to date
and in sync.

>
>> What if your "local machine" dies? If mail was IMAP, no biggie, but if
>> POP, everything else would be lost, unless the chance you have your mail
>> backed up, but with IMAP, there's no need to bother with that.
>>
>
> I don't keep mail. I read it, action it, and delete it. On the rare
> occasions when there are data I need to keep, I have a separate
> directory, which I back up separately from time to time. Copies of that
> are on "the cloud" in three different places, and my both PCs are backed
> up onto separate USB drives -- all automatic - I don't have to do a thing.
>
>

Actually you're doing a lot, and you're doing all the above to avoid
using IMAP. Your choice of course, but why bother with all that.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-25 01:14:02 UTC
Permalink
On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>
>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>> for inspection.
>>>>
>>>> BUT...
>>>>
>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>> spam folder.
>>>>
>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>
>>
>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>> reasons?
>>
>
> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
> than enough :-)
>
Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
bit of a pain.
Bob Henson
2014-10-25 11:07:35 UTC
Permalink
On 25/10/2014 2:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>
>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>
>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>
>>>
>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>> reasons?
>>>
>>
>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>> than enough :-)
>>
> Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
> several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
> bit of a pain.
>

I can do that with POP3.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Six out of seven dwarves are not Happy.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-25 14:20:17 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 6:07 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 25/10/2014 2:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>> reasons?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>> than enough :-)
>>>
>> Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
>> several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
>> bit of a pain.
>>
>
> I can do that with POP3.
>
I haven't been able to do that. Found that if my computer was logged in
on my isp's email, I couldn't access it via my iPhone, and vice versa.
IMAP fixes that, but I don't like some of the other things it does, like
send all my deleted messages to the iPhone, even if I don't want them,
and sends everything to my computer, like trash I have marked on the
iPHone, etc. A few iMAP Accounts can run your mobile device into data
overload in no time.
Bob Henson
2014-10-25 16:13:11 UTC
Permalink
On 25/10/2014 3:20 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 6:07 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
>> On 25/10/2014 2:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>>> reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>>> than enough :-)
>>>>
>>> Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
>>> several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
>>> bit of a pain.
>>>
>>
>> I can do that with POP3.
>>
> I haven't been able to do that. Found that if my computer was logged in
> on my isp's email, I couldn't access it via my iPhone, and vice versa.

That's not been a problem for me, I only ever use one of the machines at
a time. There's not much chance of more than one of them polling the
server at exactly the same time anyway, even when the are turned no at
the same time.

> IMAP fixes that, but I don't like some of the other things it does, like
> send all my deleted messages to the iPhone, even if I don't want them,
> and sends everything to my computer, like trash I have marked on the
> iPHone, etc. A few iMAP Accounts can run your mobile device into data
> overload in no time.
>
True - and another good reason for using POP3.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Bad or missing mouse driver. Sack the cat? (Y/N)
Ron Hunter
2014-10-25 19:13:14 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 11:13 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 25/10/2014 3:20 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/25/2014 6:07 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>> On 25/10/2014 2:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>>>> reasons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>>>> than enough :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
>>>> several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
>>>> bit of a pain.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can do that with POP3.
>>>
>> I haven't been able to do that. Found that if my computer was logged in
>> on my isp's email, I couldn't access it via my iPhone, and vice versa.
>
> That's not been a problem for me, I only ever use one of the machines at
> a time. There's not much chance of more than one of them polling the
> server at exactly the same time anyway, even when the are turned no at
> the same time.
>
>> IMAP fixes that, but I don't like some of the other things it does, like
>> send all my deleted messages to the iPhone, even if I don't want them,
>> and sends everything to my computer, like trash I have marked on the
>> iPHone, etc. A few iMAP Accounts can run your mobile device into data
>> overload in no time.
>>
> True - and another good reason for using POP3.
>
In the end, the convenience vs the frustration, forced me to IMAP.
The Real Bev
2014-10-26 17:37:40 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 04:07 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 25/10/2014 2:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>> reasons?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>> than enough :-)
>>>
>> Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
>> several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
>> bit of a pain.
>
> I can do that with POP3.

I can't. Once I've downloaded a message with one machine I can't see it
on my phone or tablet or laptop even if I've set gmail to NOT delete the
message after downloading (one account). I have to go to the website,
disable POP and enable it again. Then I can download everything in the
Inbox again. This is needlessly cumbersome and results in massive
amounts of useless downloading if I forgot to delete everything before
the mail I want to share with myself.

For instance -- I want to get my mail on my laptop when I'm traveling,
but also get it on my REAL machine when I get home. Accordingly, before
I leave I should remember to delete everything at the website so I won't
get all my old mail dumped to the laptop. When I get back home I do the
disable/enable thing again and download it to my REAL machine.

I frequently forget to do this, which is a real nuisance.

I have one imap account so that I can avoid the above nuisance, but
nobody ever sends me email at that account, so it's kind of pointless
except for sending mail from it while I'm traveling -- presumably people
will just hit 'reply' rather than using my REAL email address.

Nothing is ever simple.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
F***@NOSPAMpobox.com
2014-10-26 20:17:31 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 4:07 AM On a whim, Bob Henson pounded out on the keyboard

> On 25/10/2014 2:14 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/24/2014 2:46 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2014 7:38 PM, rebro wrote:
>>>> Am 24.10.2014 um 20:19 schrieb Bob Henson:
>>>>> On 24/10/2014 5:36 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>>>>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>>>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>>>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>>>>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>>>>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>>>>>> I can see it.
>>>>>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>>>>>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>>>>>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>>>>>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>>>>>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>>>>>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>>>>>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>>>>>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>>>>>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>>>>>> for inspection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>>>>>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>>>>>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>>>>>> spam folder.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>>>>>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't use IMAP, and never will.
>>>>
>>>> This sounds like a very firm position. Would you mind giving us your
>>>> reasons?
>>>>
>>> Firstly, and most importantly, there's no point - it doesn't do anything
>>> POP3 can't - so if it works, don't fix it. Over the years I have seen
>>> endless strings of complaints about things that had gone wrong with, or
>>> programs that refuse to work correctly, or refuse to work at all with
>>> IMAP, and none with POP3 that I can remember. When it does work, it's
>>> unnecessarily complicated and causes confusion. I want my mail on my
>>> computer where I have control over it and can work on it easily
>>> off-line. There are probably a few more things, but that should be more
>>> than enough :-)
>>>
>> Actually, it does. It allows you to get your email on any, or all, of
>> several devices, and not get it all messed up. Other than that, it is a
>> bit of a pain.
>>
>
> I can do that with POP3.
>

ONLY with the Inbox.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
The Real Bev
2014-10-26 17:04:35 UTC
Permalink
On 10/24/2014 09:36 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Bob Henson wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>
>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>> I can see it.
>
> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>
> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
> for inspection.
>
> BUT...
>
> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
> spam folder.
>
> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.

Gmail generally thinks that the "Hi, Babe, I saw you on twitter last
night and thought you were cute. Give me a call..." crap is real. It
also thinks a lot of the confirmation emails ("Click this link to
confirm your account.") are spam. You can't have everything.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
F***@NOSPAMpobox.com
2014-10-26 20:19:04 UTC
Permalink
On 10/26/2014 10:04 AM On a whim, The Real Bev pounded out on the keyboard

> On 10/24/2014 09:36 AM, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Bob Henson wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> Then I discovered that gmail has excellent spam filtering, so I didn't
>>>> need SpamPal anymore.
>>> I did think about using Gmail - but my basic problem is that I don't
>>> trust anyone to correctly filter my mail - I want to do it myself, where
>>> I can see it.
>> Let's say you use Tb as your mail agent and gmail's IMAP as your
>> mailserver. (Personally) I would configure Tb to NOT access the gmail
>> spam folder in preference to accessing/reviewing the spam folder content
>> periodically at gmail to make sure gmail isn't getting false positives.
>>
>> The reason I would do it that way is because gmail's incidence of false
>> positives is so low that the frequency of need to access/inspect the
>> spam folder is also low; so IMO you are better off leaving that spam on
>> gmail's servers and letting gmail autodelete it later at its expiry, 30
>> days and when you periodically visit the spam folder you can one-click
>> to delete all the spam you've checked instead of continuing to hold it
>> for inspection.
>>
>> BUT...
>>
>> ... if you feel very strongly about wanting to inspect the content of
>> your spam folder on a frequent basis and don't want to have to access
>> gmail's webmail spam folder, you can configure your IMAP to include the
>> spam folder.
>>
>> You will find that gmail's spam filter is 'practically' perfect; an
>> occasional spam getting by and practically never a false positive.
>
> Gmail generally thinks that the "Hi, Babe, I saw you on twitter last
> night and thought you were cute. Give me a call..." crap is real. It
> also thinks a lot of the confirmation emails ("Click this link to
> confirm your account.") are spam. You can't have everything.
>

Gmail filters flag almost 100% of spam for me.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-23 23:41:28 UTC
Permalink
On 10/23/2014 4:04 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 23/10/2014 1:15 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/22/2014 2:47 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>> On 22/10/2014 8:34 PM, EE wrote:
>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>>>> application level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay
>>>>>
>>>> You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
>>>> care of part of the hassle, at least.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not very well though, in the case of Thunderbird. I have tried more than
>>> once to train it, on different setups and O/Ss too - but it catches very
>>> little spam at all. This time I have persevered with marking mails for
>>> much longer - to no avail - most spam still doesn't get filtered out.
>>>
>> It sometimes takes a few attempts at marking things 'junk' before they
>> get filtered. Also, some sites are very well aware of how to work
>> around Baysian Filtering.
>>
>
> I'm persevering, Ron, but not very hopeful. I've marked a couple of
> hundred "Not Spam" messages and I get no false positives, so I'm just
> marking SPAM now.
>
> Come back Spampal - all is forgiven. I hardly got any once I had got
> that running well, but as it is no longer developed I don't suppose it
> will ever be made to work with SSL connections. Spamihilator does, but
> it won't just stamp the messages as spam so I can handle them within
> Thunderbird, it insists on dumping them in it's own sandbox - and
> checking two programs is a total waste of time. The whole point of an
> anti-spam program is that after a probationary period of time you can
> set it to delete the spam unseen - if you have to check it yourself, you
> may as well just delete the spam manually as it comes in.
>
That is what I do with just about everything, spam or not. Unless it is
documentation on something, or personal information I need to save, it
all goes to the bit bucket.
EE
2014-10-24 19:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Bob Henson wrote:
> On 22/10/2014 8:34 PM, EE wrote:
>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>
>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>> application level.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>> You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
>> care of part of the hassle, at least.
>>
>
> Not very well though, in the case of Thunderbird. I have tried more than
> once to train it, on different setups and O/Ss too - but it catches very
> little spam at all. This time I have persevered with marking mails for
> much longer - to no avail - most spam still doesn't get filtered out.
>
Really? It works pretty well for me, with Thunderbird and SeaMonkey.
Considering that at first it has only headers to examine (because I set
those apps to load only headers), I would say that it is doing well.
Jay Garcia
2014-10-25 16:15:18 UTC
Permalink
On 22.10.2014 14:34, EE wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>
>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>> application level.
>>
>> Jay
>>
> You can train the client to put spam in the junk folder. That takes
> care of part of the hassle, at least.
>

Sure, there are many ways to treat spam locally but that doesn't defeat
it, just filters it. <sigh>

Jay
Jeff Barnett
2014-10-24 20:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Jay Garcia wrote, On 10/21/2014 5:37 PM:
> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>
> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
> application level.
>
> Jay
>
For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this
fact does not jinx the situation.
--
Jeff Barnett
richard
2014-10-24 20:24:21 UTC
Permalink
On 10/24/2014 4:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote, On 10/21/2014 5:37 PM:
>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>
>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>> application level.
>>
>> Jay
>>
> For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
> directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this
> fact does not jinx the situation.

Ditto here. Had no spam via Comcast.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-25 01:12:59 UTC
Permalink
On 10/24/2014 3:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote, On 10/21/2014 5:37 PM:
>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>
>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>> application level.
>>
>> Jay
>>
> For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
> directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this
> fact does not jinx the situation.
One man's spam is another's joy. I would rather filter my OWN messages
on my OWN criteria.
Bob Henson
2014-10-25 11:09:47 UTC
Permalink
On 24/10/2014 9:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote, On 10/21/2014 5:37 PM:
>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>
>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>> application level.
>>
>> Jay
>>
> For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
> directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this
> fact does not jinx the situation.
>

"Seems to", yes. You have no idea if is deleting important mail without
telling you.

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after me. :-)

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

"I am" is the shortest English Sentence. "I do" gets you the longest.
Ron Hunter
2014-10-25 14:17:25 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 6:09 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 24/10/2014 9:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> Jay Garcia wrote, On 10/21/2014 5:37 PM:
>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>
>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>> application level.
>>>
>>> Jay
>>>
>> For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
>> directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this
>> fact does not jinx the situation.
>>
>
> "Seems to", yes. You have no idea if is deleting important mail without
> telling you.
>
> Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after me. :-)
>
I would just like to decide for myself what is spam and what is not. My
wife LOVES all those ads for this and that, all over her screen while on
the internet. If I had to put up with them, I wouldn't get on the internet.
The Real Bev
2014-10-26 17:40:52 UTC
Permalink
On 10/25/2014 07:17 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 10/25/2014 6:09 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
>> On 24/10/2014 9:06 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> Jay Garcia wrote, On 10/21/2014 5:37 PM:
>>>> How To Defeat SPAM ----
>>>>
>>>> You can't, only creating filters will work. Why ?? Simple -- reporting
>>>> does not work. Adding RBLS have some effect but not much. Over the last
>>>> six months or so I have been adding domain IP's and other addresses to
>>>> my /etc/hosts.allow file on my server. The next day all of yesterday's
>>>> spam comes from a different source. And on and on ad nauseum. SPAM
>>>> Assassin flags SPAM like it should but it still comes in to local boxes
>>>> regardless. Yes, you CAN configure SA to delete all incoming messages
>>>> flagged ***SPAM*** but then you run the risk of an important email being
>>>> deleted. It's basically a no-win situation unless you filter at the
>>>> application level.
>>>>
>>>> Jay
>>>>
>>> For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
>>> directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this
>>> fact does not jinx the situation.
>>
>> "Seems to", yes. You have no idea if is deleting important mail without
>> telling you.
>>
>> Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after me. :-)
>>
> I would just like to decide for myself what is spam and what is not. My
> wife LOVES all those ads for this and that, all over her screen while on
> the internet. If I had to put up with them, I wouldn't get on the internet.

<delete uncomplimentary comment about wife's sanity>

Adblock was surely one of God's better gifts to mankind. The fact that
he is also Lord of hosts make it even better :-)

It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
Dennis
2014-10-29 02:03:33 UTC
Permalink
The Real Bev wrote:

>
> Adblock [...]
>
> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>

And that substitute is?

Dennis
The Real Bev
2014-11-03 20:35:58 UTC
Permalink
On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> Adblock [...]
>>
>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>
> And that substitute is?

Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...

Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.

Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.


--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.
Caver1
2014-11-03 20:59:22 UTC
Permalink
On 11/03/2014 03:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> Adblock [...]
>>>
>>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>>
>> And that substitute is?
>
> Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...
>
> Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
> Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
> which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
> does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.
>
> Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.
>
>

Adblock Edge also has a few more lists that you can install if you want.
In Adblock you can add those lists as a custom list. By doing that they
wont get updated.


--
Caver1
The Real Bev
2014-11-03 23:21:58 UTC
Permalink
On 11/03/2014 12:59 PM, Caver1 wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 03:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Adblock [...]
>>>>
>>>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>>>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>>>
>>> And that substitute is?
>>
>> Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...
>>
>> Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
>> Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
>> which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
>> does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.
>>
>> Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.
>
> Adblock Edge also has a few more lists that you can install if you want.
> In Adblock you can add those lists as a custom list. By doing that they
> wont get updated.

I appreciate the fact that ads support the free stuff we enjoy and feel
a bit guilty for NOT paying my dues and looking at them. Then
rationality kicks in and I remember that I've never bought anything
because of an ad I just happened to trip over and probably will never do
so and that there's no point in subjecting myself to an annoyance for
its own sake.

I really want to use firefox instead of the 'Browser' that came with the
phone, which I assume is chrome, but Browser is just faster :-( I hate
that.


--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?
Ron Hunter
2014-11-04 02:00:24 UTC
Permalink
On 11/3/2014 5:21 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 12:59 PM, Caver1 wrote:
>> On 11/03/2014 03:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adblock [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>>>>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>>>>
>>>> And that substitute is?
>>>
>>> Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...
>>>
>>> Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
>>> Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
>>> which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
>>> does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.
>>>
>>> Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.
>>
>> Adblock Edge also has a few more lists that you can install if you want.
>> In Adblock you can add those lists as a custom list. By doing that they
>> wont get updated.
>
> I appreciate the fact that ads support the free stuff we enjoy and feel
> a bit guilty for NOT paying my dues and looking at them. Then
> rationality kicks in and I remember that I've never bought anything
> because of an ad I just happened to trip over and probably will never do
> so and that there's no point in subjecting myself to an annoyance for
> its own sake.
>
> I really want to use firefox instead of the 'Browser' that came with the
> phone, which I assume is chrome, but Browser is just faster :-( I hate
> that.
>
>
Well, I tried the Android version of Firefox, and it just didn't measure
up to the others available. Too slow, and not intuitive like the PC
version. I am exactly the same way about ads. IF I am looking for
something specific, I will check ads to see if I can get it on sale
somewhere, but the ads that a pushed in my face are a waste of time as I
won't buy from them, just like I won't buy anything that is promoted on
the phone.
The Real Bev
2014-11-03 20:59:40 UTC
Permalink
On 11/03/2014 12:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> Adblock [...]
>>>
>>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>>
>> And that substitute is?
>
> Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...
>
> Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
> Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
> which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
> does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.

It may be that you can no longer get Adblock+ through Google Play -- for
obvious reasons :-)

> Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
Dennis
2014-11-06 17:49:40 UTC
Permalink
The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 12:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Adblock [...]
>>>>
>>>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>>>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>>>
>>> And that substitute is?
>>
>> Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...
>>
>> Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
>> Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
>> which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
>> does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.
>
> It may be that you can no longer get Adblock+ through Google Play -- for
> obvious reasons :-)
>
>> Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.
>

I still have Adblock in Firefox on my Android. I added Bluhell, thanks.
Would be nice if someone came up with an 'adblock' for the Android
'browser', it is quick.

Dennis
The Real Bev
2014-11-07 21:50:18 UTC
Permalink
On 11/06/2014 09:49 AM, Dennis wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/03/2014 12:35 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2014 07:03 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Adblock [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> It's apparently not available for the Android version of firefox any
>>>>> more, but there's a substitute that seems to work as well.
>>>>
>>>> And that substitute is?
>>>
>>> Oh crap, now I have to turn the phone on...
>>>
>>> Interesting. Adblock is available through mozilla plugins, as is
>>> Bluhell (what I think the other thing is). There's also Adblock Edge,
>>> which is the same except it doesn't allow "acceptable" ads like Adblock+
>>> does -- if you don't tell it that NO ad is ever acceptable.
>>
>> It may be that you can no longer get Adblock+ through Google Play -- for
>> obvious reasons :-)
>>
>>> Ads are for people who can't figure out how to avoid them.
>>
>
> I still have Adblock in Firefox on my Android. I added Bluhell, thanks.
> Would be nice if someone came up with an 'adblock' for the Android
> 'browser', it is quick.

I'm getting bummed about Android/Google.

1. One of the 4.4.2 updates deleted the ability to write to the
external sd card with 3rd party apps. There has been a monumental
uproar about this, so apparently they're going to remove this
restriction in 5.0. Are they also going to provide an update for the
4.4.2 people who have been damaged severely by this limitation?

2. Might be a Samsung-only problem, but the last kernel update runs the
battery down twice as fast as it can be recharged -- apparently by doing
some sort of indexing (too bad if you have a lot of files) that can't be
stopped. Heats up the tablet too. This has been complained about in
one form or another for over a year.

3. For the second time Play Store has decided I don't have enough
space, although I do. I really do. Only recourse is a ractory reset,
which took at least a day to recover from, and now several weeks later
it's happening again. Google says "Tough shit if you didn't buy a
Nexus, whine to your manufacturer" about any android problems you might
have.

4. I want different gmail accounts for different purposes. Google
doesn't want you to do that. You can only be logged in to ONE gmail
account at a time. "Tough shit if that's not the way you want it, how
much did it cost you?"


--
Cheers, Bev
==========================================================
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections
Dennis
2014-11-08 04:49:49 UTC
Permalink
The Real Bev wrote:

[...]

>
> I'm getting bummed about Android/Google.
>
> 1. One of the 4.4.2 updates deleted the ability to write to the
> external sd card with 3rd party apps. There has been a monumental
> uproar about this, so apparently they're going to remove this
> restriction in 5.0. Are they also going to provide an update for the
> 4.4.2 people who have been damaged severely by this limitation?

My phone is running version 4.1.2.
I rooted my phone because I didn't like how everything was locked down.
The next phone I get (in a year or two will be a developer model of
probably a Motorola phone or maybe a Nexus, purchased from the
manufacturer). Gonna be pricey but I'll have complete control. Then I
can do whatever I want to it including running custom roms. The biggest
reason I rooted my phone was because Verizon wanted me to pay extra for
the 'convenience' of enabling the hotspot built into my phone. At the
time it didn't include any extra data so I would have been paying more
per month and getting nothing extra except the 'convenience'. Now it
costs nothing extra to use the hotspot and the pricing is actually lower
than it was two years ago AND they "encourage" sharing data amongst
devices!!!

>
> 2. Might be a Samsung-only problem, but the last kernel update runs the
> battery down twice as fast as it can be recharged -- apparently by doing
> some sort of indexing (too bad if you have a lot of files) that can't be
> stopped. Heats up the tablet too. This has been complained about in
> one form or another for over a year.

If it is 'root-able' I would root it, back out the updates. Go back to
what works. Or get a custom rom and quit fussing about it.

>
> 3. For the second time Play Store has decided I don't have enough
> space, although I do. I really do. Only recourse is a ractory reset,
> which took at least a day to recover from, and now several weeks later
> it's happening again. Google says "Tough shit if you didn't buy a
> Nexus, whine to your manufacturer" about any android problems you might
> have.

Is your phone 'root-able'? This might be another case where it might be
beneficial to be rooted.

>
> 4. I want different gmail accounts for different purposes. Google
> doesn't want you to do that. You can only be logged in to ONE gmail
> account at a time. "Tough shit if that's not the way you want it, how
> much did it cost you?"

I have my own email and wouldn't use gmail if it wasn't almost essential
for certain things on the phone. Can't you set up an additional email
client, like 'K-9 Mail' (I like it on my phone), to check additional
gmail accounts?

Soooo, you gonna buy a windows phone? ;-) Android/Google isn't as bad as
Windows/Microsoft or I-anything/Apple ... yet.

Dennis
Ron Hunter
2014-11-08 08:11:41 UTC
Permalink
On 11/7/2014 10:49 PM, Dennis wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> I'm getting bummed about Android/Google.
>>
>> 1. One of the 4.4.2 updates deleted the ability to write to the
>> external sd card with 3rd party apps. There has been a monumental
>> uproar about this, so apparently they're going to remove this
>> restriction in 5.0. Are they also going to provide an update for the
>> 4.4.2 people who have been damaged severely by this limitation?
>
> My phone is running version 4.1.2.
> I rooted my phone because I didn't like how everything was locked down.
> The next phone I get (in a year or two will be a developer model of
> probably a Motorola phone or maybe a Nexus, purchased from the
> manufacturer). Gonna be pricey but I'll have complete control. Then I
> can do whatever I want to it including running custom roms. The biggest
> reason I rooted my phone was because Verizon wanted me to pay extra for
> the 'convenience' of enabling the hotspot built into my phone. At the
> time it didn't include any extra data so I would have been paying more
> per month and getting nothing extra except the 'convenience'. Now it
> costs nothing extra to use the hotspot and the pricing is actually lower
> than it was two years ago AND they "encourage" sharing data amongst
> devices!!!
>
>>
>> 2. Might be a Samsung-only problem, but the last kernel update runs the
>> battery down twice as fast as it can be recharged -- apparently by doing
>> some sort of indexing (too bad if you have a lot of files) that can't be
>> stopped. Heats up the tablet too. This has been complained about in
>> one form or another for over a year.
>
> If it is 'root-able' I would root it, back out the updates. Go back to
> what works. Or get a custom rom and quit fussing about it.
>
>>
>> 3. For the second time Play Store has decided I don't have enough
>> space, although I do. I really do. Only recourse is a ractory reset,
>> which took at least a day to recover from, and now several weeks later
>> it's happening again. Google says "Tough shit if you didn't buy a
>> Nexus, whine to your manufacturer" about any android problems you might
>> have.
>
> Is your phone 'root-able'? This might be another case where it might be
> beneficial to be rooted.
>
>>
>> 4. I want different gmail accounts for different purposes. Google
>> doesn't want you to do that. You can only be logged in to ONE gmail
>> account at a time. "Tough shit if that's not the way you want it, how
>> much did it cost you?"
>
> I have my own email and wouldn't use gmail if it wasn't almost essential
> for certain things on the phone. Can't you set up an additional email
> client, like 'K-9 Mail' (I like it on my phone), to check additional
> gmail accounts?
>
> Soooo, you gonna buy a windows phone? ;-) Android/Google isn't as bad as
> Windows/Microsoft or I-anything/Apple ... yet.
>
> Dennis
>
Nice to hear you guys talking about how great Android is. Grin.
I did manage to fix, at least for now, the problem with no space for
updating by deleting some unused, large apps. Now it updates fine, so
far. Something is seriously wrong with the 4.x release memory
management process.
The Real Bev
2014-11-14 00:06:27 UTC
Permalink
On 11/08/2014 12:11 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/7/2014 10:49 PM, Dennis wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm getting bummed about Android/Google.
>>>
>>> 1. One of the 4.4.2 updates deleted the ability to write to the
>>> external sd card with 3rd party apps. There has been a monumental
>>> uproar about this, so apparently they're going to remove this
>>> restriction in 5.0. Are they also going to provide an update for the
>>> 4.4.2 people who have been damaged severely by this limitation?
>>
>> My phone is running version 4.1.2.
>> I rooted my phone because I didn't like how everything was locked down.
>> The next phone I get (in a year or two will be a developer model of
>> probably a Motorola phone or maybe a Nexus, purchased from the
>> manufacturer). Gonna be pricey but I'll have complete control. Then I
>> can do whatever I want to it including running custom roms. The biggest
>> reason I rooted my phone was because Verizon wanted me to pay extra for
>> the 'convenience' of enabling the hotspot built into my phone. At the
>> time it didn't include any extra data so I would have been paying more
>> per month and getting nothing extra except the 'convenience'. Now it
>> costs nothing extra to use the hotspot and the pricing is actually lower
>> than it was two years ago AND they "encourage" sharing data amongst
>> devices!!!

My BLU phone is running 4.2.1, but Allen has Samsung tablets running
4.4.whatever. The BLU's GPS is pretty damn flakey so I was thinking of
relplacing it with a Samsung when I stop feeling guilty about replacing
something that isn't broken. Now I'm not so sure.

>>> 2. Might be a Samsung-only problem, but the last kernel update runs the
>>> battery down twice as fast as it can be recharged -- apparently by doing
>>> some sort of indexing (too bad if you have a lot of files) that can't be
>>> stopped. Heats up the tablet too. This has been complained about in
>>> one form or another for over a year.
>>
>> If it is 'root-able' I would root it, back out the updates. Go back to
>> what works. Or get a custom rom and quit fussing about it.

He's thinking of that when the warranty is up. The oldest one was
bought in March this year, though...

>>> 3. For the second time Play Store has decided I don't have enough
>>> space, although I do. I really do. Only recourse is a ractory reset,
>>> which took at least a day to recover from, and now several weeks later
>>> it's happening again. Google says "Tough shit if you didn't buy a
>>> Nexus, whine to your manufacturer" about any android problems you might
>>> have.

It was OK after a while, and then it failed again. I think it wants to
see at least 100 MB of open space in the "internal storage"
partition/whatever. I defaulted the download directory to 'phone', but
some apps seem to ignore that. More flakeyness.

>> Is your phone 'root-able'? This might be another case where it might be
>> beneficial to be rooted.

Probably not unless somebody actually knows more than "Run this
program...". Not popular enough for somebody to spend effort on it.
Somebody has a simple rooting thingy for SOME models of BLU phones, but
not mine.

OTOH, if I wreck it I can replace it...

>>> 4. I want different gmail accounts for different purposes. Google
>>> doesn't want you to do that. You can only be logged in to ONE gmail
>>> account at a time. "Tough shit if that's not the way you want it, how
>>> much did it cost you?"
>>
>> I have my own email and wouldn't use gmail if it wasn't almost essential
>> for certain things on the phone. Can't you set up an additional email
>> client, like 'K-9 Mail' (I like it on my phone), to check additional
>> gmail accounts?

I don't do a lot of email on the phone, and the original 'email' program
is a lot nicer to use than the included 'gmail' program. The phone is a
lot nicer than the computer at logging into the proper account, but I
mostly want to use the different google functions on my computer.

>> Soooo, you gonna buy a windows phone? ;-) Android/Google isn't as bad as
>> Windows/Microsoft or I-anything/Apple ... yet.

Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
buy it...

> Nice to hear you guys talking about how great Android is. Grin.
> I did manage to fix, at least for now, the problem with no space for
> updating by deleting some unused, large apps. Now it updates fine, so
> far. Something is seriously wrong with the 4.x release memory
> management process.

It used to be "Do No Evil." Now "A Little Bit of Evil Is OK."


--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Linux -- the ultimate freebie!
Daniel
2014-11-14 06:10:10 UTC
Permalink
On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:

<Snip>
>
> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
> buy it...

$99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.31 Build identifier: 20141020202138
Ron Hunter
2014-11-14 09:34:53 UTC
Permalink
On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>>
>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
>> buy it...
>
> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>
Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.
Daniel
2014-11-15 09:23:57 UTC
Permalink
On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>>
>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
>>> buy it...
>>
>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>
> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.

What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself :-( )
and put something else on it??

(Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.31 Build identifier: 20141020202138
Ed Mullen
2014-11-16 15:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Ron Hunter wrote on 11/15/2014 7:38 PM:
> On 11/15/2014 3:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little
>>>>> 11"
>>>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a
>>>>> reason to
>>>>> buy it...
>>>>
>>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>>>
>>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.
>>
>> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself :-( )
>> and put something else on it??
>>
>> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )
>>
> Where would you get something else? Not the least interested in Linux,
> so there really is no alternative now that MS isn't selling Win7 any more.
>

MS may have stopped shipping w7 but you can still buy it at retail and
online. Google Windows 7.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Whenever I feel the need to exercise, I lie down till the feeling goes away.
Ron Hunter
2014-11-17 07:53:30 UTC
Permalink
On 11/16/2014 9:15 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote on 11/15/2014 7:38 PM:
>> On 11/15/2014 3:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little
>>>>>> 11"
>>>>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a
>>>>>> reason to
>>>>>> buy it...
>>>>>
>>>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>>>>
>>>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.
>>>
>>> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself :-( )
>>> and put something else on it??
>>>
>>> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )
>>>
>> Where would you get something else? Not the least interested in Linux,
>> so there really is no alternative now that MS isn't selling Win7 any
>> more.
>>
>
> MS may have stopped shipping w7 but you can still buy it at retail and
> online. Google Windows 7.
>
ANd when the pipeline is empty?
The Real Bev
2014-11-19 05:59:02 UTC
Permalink
On 11/16/2014 11:53 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 9:15 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote on 11/15/2014 7:38 PM:
>>> On 11/15/2014 3:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a
>>>>>>> cute little 11" laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I
>>>>>>> wish I could think of a reason to buy it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want??
>>>>>> $98!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to
>>>>> take it.
>>>>
>>>> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself
>>>> :-( ) and put something else on it??
>>>>
>>>> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )
>>>>
>>> Where would you get something else? Not the least interested in
>>> Linux, so there really is no alternative now that MS isn't
>>> selling Win7 any more.
>>
>> MS may have stopped shipping w7 but you can still buy it at retail
>> and online. Google Windows 7.
>>
> ANd when the pipeline is empty?

Pirate Bay.

--
Cheers, Bev
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
Please hassle me, I thrive on stress.
Caver1
2014-11-19 10:17:18 UTC
Permalink
On 11/19/2014 12:59 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 11:53 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/16/2014 9:15 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote on 11/15/2014 7:38 PM:
>>>> On 11/15/2014 3:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a
>>>>>>>> cute little 11" laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I
>>>>>>>> wish I could think of a reason to buy it...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want??
>>>>>>> $98!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to
>>>>>> take it.
>>>>>
>>>>> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself
>>>>> :-( ) and put something else on it??
>>>>>
>>>>> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )
>>>>>
>>>> Where would you get something else? Not the least interested in
>>>> Linux, so there really is no alternative now that MS isn't
>>>> selling Win7 any more.
>>>
>>> MS may have stopped shipping w7 but you can still buy it at retail
>>> and online. Google Windows 7.
>>>
>> ANd when the pipeline is empty?
>
> Pirate Bay.
>

If you want to try.

Digital River via Microsoft Azure;
http://heidoc.net/joomla/technology-science/microsoft/14-windows-7-direct-download-links

Softpedia;
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Windows-7.shtml
Ed Mullen
2014-11-19 16:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Ron Hunter wrote on 11/17/2014 2:53 AM:
> On 11/16/2014 9:15 AM, Ed Mullen wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote on 11/15/2014 7:38 PM:
>>> On 11/15/2014 3:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little
>>>>>>> 11"
>>>>>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a
>>>>>>> reason to
>>>>>>> buy it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.
>>>>
>>>> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself :-( )
>>>> and put something else on it??
>>>>
>>>> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )
>>>>
>>> Where would you get something else? Not the least interested in Linux,
>>> so there really is no alternative now that MS isn't selling Win7 any
>>> more.
>>>
>>
>> MS may have stopped shipping w7 but you can still buy it at retail and
>> online. Google Windows 7.
>>
> ANd when the pipeline is empty?
>

It likely won't ever be since the last copies of W7 I bought were online
downloads.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net/
Some people are only alive because it is illegal to shoot them.
Daniel
2014-11-17 10:25:37 UTC
Permalink
On 17/11/14 02:42, WaltS48 wrote:

<Snip>
> I read this post to learn how to defeat spam and get OS talk.
>
> Can't anybody change a subject line around here!!!!!!! How
> inconsiderate. Now I have to click through I don't know how many other
> posts that are off topic just to see if there is anything that is on topic.
>
> Now back to HTML posting.
>
> Oh, Thanks Daniel!

"Oh, Thanks Daniel!"!! For.....??? (I like it when I've done something
good!! :-P )

And, Walt, once you've found a thread has wondered off into territory
that you are not interested in, have you thought about using
Message->Ignore Sub-thread (Shift K)??

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.31 Build identifier: 20141020202138
WaltS48
2014-11-17 14:04:42 UTC
Permalink
On 11/17/2014 05:25 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 17/11/14 02:42, WaltS48 wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>> I read this post to learn how to defeat spam and get OS talk.
>>
>> Can't anybody change a subject line around here!!!!!!! How
>> inconsiderate. Now I have to click through I don't know how many other
>> posts that are off topic just to see if there is anything that is on
>> topic.
>>
>> Now back to HTML posting.
>>
>> Oh, Thanks Daniel!
>
> "Oh, Thanks Daniel!"!! For.....??? (I like it when I've done something
> good!! :-P )


For changing subjects in some other posts.

>
> And, Walt, once you've found a thread has wondered off into territory
> that you are not interested in, have you thought about using
> Message->Ignore Sub-thread (Shift K)??
>

Well, I might be interested in some of it. Who knows what the other
non-participants on the mailing list think. A change of subject would be
considerate.

But this has been discussed before and obviously hasn't sunk in for
some, and won't change.

Just thought I'd bitch because we can all find fault in others behavior.
Now why didn't I post this in HTML?
Ron Hunter
2014-11-17 15:49:39 UTC
Permalink
On 11/17/2014 8:04 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 11/17/2014 05:25 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 17/11/14 02:42, WaltS48 wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>> I read this post to learn how to defeat spam and get OS talk.
>>>
>>> Can't anybody change a subject line around here!!!!!!! How
>>> inconsiderate. Now I have to click through I don't know how many other
>>> posts that are off topic just to see if there is anything that is on
>>> topic.
>>>
>>> Now back to HTML posting.
>>>
>>> Oh, Thanks Daniel!
>>
>> "Oh, Thanks Daniel!"!! For.....??? (I like it when I've done something
>> good!! :-P )
>
>
> For changing subjects in some other posts.
>
>>
>> And, Walt, once you've found a thread has wondered off into territory
>> that you are not interested in, have you thought about using
>> Message->Ignore Sub-thread (Shift K)??
>>
>
> Well, I might be interested in some of it. Who knows what the other
> non-participants on the mailing list think. A change of subject would be
> considerate.
>
> But this has been discussed before and obviously hasn't sunk in for
> some, and won't change.
>
> Just thought I'd bitch because we can all find fault in others behavior.
> Now why didn't I post this in HTML?
Trouble is that may cause users who filter to lose the filtering for
that thread.
The Real Bev
2014-11-16 06:44:36 UTC
Permalink
On 11/15/2014 01:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> <Snip>
>>>>
>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
>>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
>>>> buy it...
>>>
>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>>
>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.
>
> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself :-( )
> and put something else on it??
>
> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )

When we bought the Asus laptop (big discount from Circuit City because
it was the demo and they couldn't get it to boot windows) Allen put
slackware on it, but it was a real bitch for some reason -- it took many
attempts and many days and it still won't connect to my daughter's
wireless network, although the login is correct and we have no trouble
at home. Fortunately the 50-foot ethernet cable was cheap :-)

Curious thing: I could get the camera and my daughter's wireless
connection to work easily with KDE, but the usual CLI things were
hopeless.

I'd probably put Ubuntu on a new one. It seems to be the most popular
and easiest to update/add new applications. As mentioned previously,
I'm becoming less and less willing to go to a lot of trouble.

--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea:
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it." --Gene Spafford (1992)
The Real Bev
2014-11-16 06:46:40 UTC
Permalink
On 11/15/2014 04:38 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/15/2014 3:23 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 20:34, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little
>>>>> 11"
>>>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a
>>>>> reason to
>>>>> buy it...
>>>>
>>>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>>>
>>> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.
>>
>> What?? Can't you just wipe the Win8 (hadn't noticed that myself :-( )
>> and put something else on it??
>>
>> (Don't know you could go as far back as WinME though!! ;-) )
>>
> Where would you get something else? Not the least interested in Linux,
> so there really is no alternative now that MS isn't selling Win7 any more.

Pirate Bay. Buy a used machine that came with an actual disk.
Craigslist. We bought an official Win7 disk for a buck at a yard sale,
complete with magic word.

--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea:
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it." --Gene Spafford (1992)
The Real Bev
2014-11-16 06:18:03 UTC
Permalink
On 11/14/2014 01:34 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> On 11/14/2014 12:10 AM, Daniel wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 11:06, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>>
>>> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
>>> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
>>> buy it...
>>
>> $99, Bev, $99 .... How much more reason do you want?? $98!!
>>
> Windows 8 would kill the deal for me, even if they paid ME to take it.

We'd put linux on it.

--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea:
massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining,
and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you
least expect it." --Gene Spafford (1992)
Ant
2014-11-16 21:02:41 UTC
Permalink
On 11/15/2014 10:17 PM PT, The Real Bev typed:
> I rarely use either the laptop or the tablet that I already have. We've
> got so much crap in our house that I really don't want to add to it for
> some as-yet-undetermined marginal benefit.

Same here. Just buy when you need them. Get rid of stuff you don't use.
--
"For example, the tiny ant, a creature of great industry, drags with its
mouth whatever it can, and adds it to the heap which she is piling up,
not unaware nor careless of the future." --Horace, Satires, Book I, I, 33.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
The Real Bev
2014-11-19 05:57:57 UTC
Permalink
On 11/16/2014 01:02 PM, Ant wrote:
> On 11/15/2014 10:17 PM PT, The Real Bev typed:
>> I rarely use either the laptop or the tablet that I already have. We've
>> got so much crap in our house that I really don't want to add to it for
>> some as-yet-undetermined marginal benefit.
>
> Same here. Just buy when you need them. Get rid of stuff you don't use.

It's all useful stuff, as opposed to Franklin Mint crap, and my live-in
consultant feels happier when he has whatever tool/material/thing he
might need.

--
Cheers, Bev
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>
Please hassle me, I thrive on stress.
Dennis
2014-11-14 19:08:51 UTC
Permalink
The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/08/2014 12:11 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/7/2014 10:49 PM, Dennis wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting bummed about Android/Google.
>>>>
>>>> 1. One of the 4.4.2 updates deleted the ability to write to the
>>>> external sd card with 3rd party apps. There has been a monumental
>>>> uproar about this, so apparently they're going to remove this
>>>> restriction in 5.0. Are they also going to provide an update for the
>>>> 4.4.2 people who have been damaged severely by this limitation?
>>>
>>> My phone is running version 4.1.2.
>>> I rooted my phone because I didn't like how everything was locked down.
>>> The next phone I get (in a year or two will be a developer model of
>>> probably a Motorola phone or maybe a Nexus, purchased from the
>>> manufacturer). Gonna be pricey but I'll have complete control. Then I
>>> can do whatever I want to it including running custom roms. The biggest
>>> reason I rooted my phone was because Verizon wanted me to pay extra for
>>> the 'convenience' of enabling the hotspot built into my phone. At the
>>> time it didn't include any extra data so I would have been paying more
>>> per month and getting nothing extra except the 'convenience'. Now it
>>> costs nothing extra to use the hotspot and the pricing is actually lower
>>> than it was two years ago AND they "encourage" sharing data amongst
>>> devices!!!
>
> My BLU phone is running 4.2.1, but Allen has Samsung tablets running
> 4.4.whatever. The BLU's GPS is pretty damn flakey so I was thinking of
> relplacing it with a Samsung when I stop feeling guilty about replacing
> something that isn't broken. Now I'm not so sure.
>
>>>> 2. Might be a Samsung-only problem, but the last kernel update runs the
>>>> battery down twice as fast as it can be recharged -- apparently by doing
>>>> some sort of indexing (too bad if you have a lot of files) that can't be
>>>> stopped. Heats up the tablet too. This has been complained about in
>>>> one form or another for over a year.
>>>
>>> If it is 'root-able' I would root it, back out the updates. Go back to
>>> what works. Or get a custom rom and quit fussing about it.
>
> He's thinking of that when the warranty is up. The oldest one was
> bought in March this year, though...

My Droid Razr Maxx was less than two weeks old when I rooted it. The
Verizon price on the phone was $800.00 at the time. (I got the upgrade
discount with the 2 year contract for a lot less than $800.00) I could
have bought a developer's model direct from Motorola for about $550.00.
I didn't care about warrantee, I wanted my phone to work how I wanted.
And at the time (probably still is) there was a fella on one of the
droid forums that said he could walk you through un-'bricking' the Razr
Maxx. He had several testimonials from people that thought their phones
were 'hard bricked' that he had helped them recover so I went for it.
And, had no problems rooting.

My phone works *extremely* well with most of the Motorola and Verizon
bloat removed/disabled/hidden.

I'm sure your tech will check first, there is a LOT of info around about
rooting and 'bricking' a wide selection of phones. Rooting is not the
problem, un-'bricking' is the important part. If you follow the
instructions it won't brick, normally, but it is always good to have a
bail-out plan.

>
>>>> 3. For the second time Play Store has decided I don't have enough
>>>> space, although I do. I really do. Only recourse is a ractory reset,
>>>> which took at least a day to recover from, and now several weeks later
>>>> it's happening again. Google says "Tough shit if you didn't buy a
>>>> Nexus, whine to your manufacturer" about any android problems you might
>>>> have.
>
> It was OK after a while, and then it failed again. I think it wants to
> see at least 100 MB of open space in the "internal storage"
> partition/whatever. I defaulted the download directory to 'phone', but
> some apps seem to ignore that. More flakeyness.
>
>>> Is your phone 'root-able'? This might be another case where it might be
>>> beneficial to be rooted.
>
> Probably not unless somebody actually knows more than "Run this
> program...". Not popular enough for somebody to spend effort on it.
> Somebody has a simple rooting thingy for SOME models of BLU phones, but
> not mine.

I didn't have a script for mine either. It was all done manually while
connected to my laptop. Then the *exciting* , *breath* *holding* ,
*spine* *tingling* 'special button holding' reboot of the phone!!!
..... Ahhh, success!

>
> OTOH, if I wreck it I can replace it...

That's the spirit!!

>
>>>> 4. I want different gmail accounts for different purposes. Google
>>>> doesn't want you to do that. You can only be logged in to ONE gmail
>>>> account at a time. "Tough shit if that's not the way you want it, how
>>>> much did it cost you?"
>>>
>>> I have my own email and wouldn't use gmail if it wasn't almost essential
>>> for certain things on the phone. Can't you set up an additional email
>>> client, like 'K-9 Mail' (I like it on my phone), to check additional
>>> gmail accounts?
>
> I don't do a lot of email on the phone, and the original 'email' program
> is a lot nicer to use than the included 'gmail' program. The phone is a
> lot nicer than the computer at logging into the proper account, but I
> mostly want to use the different google functions on my computer.

Can't help you there, I avoid 'most' of google. The biggest reason I
have a gmail account is it is unavoidable if you want to purchase an app
on your phone using the Play Store. I didn't have a gmail account until
I had to. And it is never used except for a very rare notification of
some sort.

>
>>> Soooo, you gonna buy a windows phone? ;-) Android/Google isn't as bad as
>>> Windows/Microsoft or I-anything/Apple ... yet.
>
> Sure. Black Friday is coming up, right? Best Buy has a cute little 11"
> laptop for $99 32GB SSD, windows 8. I wish I could think of a reason to
> buy it...

I was going to say you could blow out windows and test Firefox OS. Maybe
you still could but I don't know if it would install on that laptop. I
went to the Firefox OS website and it looks like they only support a
small number of smart phones at the moment. Oh, BTW, the Firefox OS
website is a terrible, terrible place to go. I found the site very hard
to read, slow, and extremely cluttered, especially for a (assumed)
predominately mobile site!

So the only viable alternative is to blow out windows and install your
favorite linux distro! ;-)

>
>> Nice to hear you guys talking about how great Android is. Grin.
>> I did manage to fix, at least for now, the problem with no space for
>> updating by deleting some unused, large apps. Now it updates fine, so
>> far. Something is seriously wrong with the 4.x release memory
>> management process.

Android is "great", once you get past the vendor and carrier garbage.
You might be able to get around all the garbage on windows or apple but
I'm just not interested in getting involved with either.

>
> It used to be "Do No Evil." Now "A Little Bit of Evil Is OK."

That is the path to a bottomless pit of misery!! And you know it! ;-)

Dennis
Daniel
2014-11-16 09:42:12 UTC
Permalink
On 16/11/14 17:37, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/14/2014 11:08 AM, Dennis wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> My Droid Razr Maxx was less than two weeks old when I rooted it. The
>> Verizon price on the phone was $800.00 at the time. (I got the upgrade
>> discount with the 2 year contract for a lot less than $800.00) I could
>> have bought a developer's model direct from Motorola for about $550.00.
>
> That's you, not me. The last car we bought (the 70 Dodge pickup) cost
> $850. If I really USED the phone, rather than regarding it as a toy
> that I can use to make the occasional phone call, I might consider
> trading up. My daughter the tourguide uses her iPhone constantly, and
> what she pays for herself and the kids is justified.
>
>> I didn't care about warrantee, I wanted my phone to work how I wanted.
>> And at the time (probably still is) there was a fella on one of the
>> droid forums that said he could walk you through un-'bricking' the Razr
>> Maxx. He had several testimonials from people that thought their phones
>> were 'hard bricked' that he had helped them recover so I went for it.
>> And, had no problems rooting.
>>
>> My phone works *extremely* well with most of the Motorola and Verizon
>> bloat removed/disabled/hidden.
>
> Nice.
>
>> I'm sure your tech will check first, there is a LOT of info around about
>> rooting and 'bricking' a wide selection of phones. Rooting is not the
>> problem, un-'bricking' is the important part. If you follow the
>> instructions it won't brick, normally, but it is always good to have a
>> bail-out plan.
>
> I've hunted for BLU rooting capabiliy and came up wanting. I'm less and
> less willing to go to a lot of trouble to do ANYTHING... :-(
>
>>> It was OK after a while, and then it failed again. I think it wants to
>>> see at least 100 MB of open space in the "internal storage"
>>> partition/whatever. I defaulted the download directory to 'phone', but
>>> some apps seem to ignore that. More flakeyness.
>
> Annoying that so many apps hard-wire their storage/download directories
> to /sdcard, thinking they're doing the right thing.
>
>>>>> Is your phone 'root-able'? This might be another case where it
>>>>> might be
>>>>> beneficial to be rooted.
>>>
>>> Probably not unless somebody actually knows more than "Run this
>>> program...". Not popular enough for somebody to spend effort on it.
>>> Somebody has a simple rooting thingy for SOME models of BLU phones, but
>>> not mine.
>>
>> I didn't have a script for mine either. It was all done manually while
>> connected to my laptop. Then the *exciting* , *breath* *holding* ,
>> *spine* *tingling* 'special button holding' reboot of the phone!!!
>> ..... Ahhh, success!
>
> I don't think I could get that excited about a phone. A pain-free back,
> yes. Bettering my top speed down the hill, yes. Really good pizza, of
> course...
>
>>> OTOH, if I wreck it I can replace it...
>>
>> That's the spirit!!
>
> Unfortunately that's not really in my nature.
>
>>> I don't do a lot of email on the phone, and the original 'email' program
>>> is a lot nicer to use than the included 'gmail' program. The phone is a
>>> lot nicer than the computer at logging into the proper account, but I
>>> mostly want to use the different google functions on my computer.
>>
>> Can't help you there, I avoid 'most' of google. The biggest reason I
>> have a gmail account is it is unavoidable if you want to purchase an app
>> on your phone using the Play Store. I didn't have a gmail account until
>> I had to. And it is never used except for a very rare notification of
>> some sort.
>
> No help, just a nuisance. I like gmail because it does a nice job of
> filtering out the spam; I only get a few per day now, and they're
> really stupid.
>
>> I was going to say you could blow out windows and test Firefox OS. Maybe
>> you still could but I don't know if it would install on that laptop. I
>> went to the Firefox OS website and it looks like they only support a
>> small number of smart phones at the moment. Oh, BTW, the Firefox OS
>> website is a terrible, terrible place to go. I found the site very hard
>> to read, slow, and extremely cluttered, especially for a (assumed)
>> predominately mobile site!
>
> I should probably look, but I can't imagine that they have all the slick
> apps that android and iphone have, and those are the main reason I have
> a smartphone. If all I wanted to do was make calls I've got the old
> Nokia flip-phone.
>
>> So the only viable alternative is to blow out windows and install your
>> favorite linux distro! ;-)
>
> Indeed!
>
>>>> Nice to hear you guys talking about how great Android is. Grin.
>>>> I did manage to fix, at least for now, the problem with no space for
>>>> updating by deleting some unused, large apps. Now it updates fine, so
>>>> far. Something is seriously wrong with the 4.x release memory
>>>> management process.
>>
>> Android is "great", once you get past the vendor and carrier garbage.
>> You might be able to get around all the garbage on windows or apple but
>> I'm just not interested in getting involved with either.
>
> I really don't see why root privilege isn't easily obtainable. Let the
> thing come un"rooted", but just feed in the password that came with the
> phone and you have complete control just like you have with your
> computer. If you screw it up badly there's always factory reset, which
> is, curiously enough, the solution to THEM screwing it up badly. What's
> the problem? Most people wouldn't do it, just like they don't
> personalize their favorite computer applications.
>
>>> It used to be "Do No Evil." Now "A Little Bit of Evil Is OK."
>>
>> That is the path to a bottomless pit of misery!! And you know it! ;-)
>
> Now we must define "a little bit".
>
"a little bit" ... that's how bad you are, everyone else is "real bad"!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:32.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.29 Build identifier: 20140829003846
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:34.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.31 Build identifier: 20141020202138
Jim Fisher
2014-10-25 19:26:19 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Oct 2014 at 12:09, Bob Henson wrote:

> > For what it's worth: Comcast seems to catch and delete 99+% of spam
> > directed at me. I'm amazed that I like. I only hope that mentioning this fact
> > does not jinx the situation.
> >
>
> "Seems to", yes. You have no idea if is deleting important mail without
> telling you.

I've had perfectly genuine replies to Comcast users blocked by them in the
past, though not recently. They notified me but not the intended recipient.

I think they used to block domain names, and mine was (and still is) regularly
spoofed by spammers. I suspect they have now switched to the much better but
still not perfect blocking of IP addresses.

Jim Fisher
--
http://www.jimella.me.uk - my personal web site covering many subjects
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...