Fast Windows XP Repairing

wrote:

Repair your system very fast and forget boring new installation
http://windowsxpppppro.bloodsport.com/


Send your spam abuse report to: , that will work.

The "X-Complaints-To: " does not work; it
is presumably spoofed.

Johannes Andersen wrote
wrote:

Repair your system very fast and forget boring new installation
http://windowsxpppppro.bloodsport.com/

Send your spam abuse report to: , that will work.

No it doesnt.

The "X-Complaints-To: " does not work;
it is presumably spoofed.

Its not meant to work.

Rod Speed wrote:

Johannes Andersen wrote
wrote:

Repair your system very fast and forget boring new installation
http://windowsxpppppro.bloodsport.com/

Send your spam abuse report to: , that will work.

No it doesnt.

I does work, because I received a response from google.

The "X-Complaints-To: " does not work;
it is presumably spoofed.

Its not meant to work.

johannes wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:

Johannes Andersen wrote
wrote:

Repair your system very fast and forget boring new installation
http://windowsxpppppro.bloodsport.com/

Send your spam abuse report to: , that will work.

No it doesnt.

I does work,

Nope, it wont stop the spam.

because I received a response from google.

Thats just an auto responder, they wont stop the spam.

The "X-Complaints-To: " does not work;
it is presumably spoofed.

Its not meant to work.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 19:09:23 +0100, johannes
wrote:



Rod Speed wrote:

Johannes Andersen wrote
wrote:

Repair your system very fast and forget boring new installation
http://windowsxpppppro.bloodsport.com/

Send your spam abuse report to: , that will work.

No it doesnt.

I does work, because I received a response from google.



At this point, many people have received canned replies, are
feeling that by receiving a canned reply, there is nothing
being done. I feel this is a premature conclusion, that if
Google were to take any measures it would not be an
individual reading the emails and manually tracking down
spammers (as the volume of spam is just too high for that).
Instead I suspect they would use an automated system that
reads the email and forms some sort of database which is
used to mechanize an action. If this is true, the main
interference of this working is people thinking it does no
good, thus not reporting the spam, so too few reports are
made to accumulate enough data for an action.

kony wrote:
johannes wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
Johannes Andersen wrote
wrote:

Repair your system very fast and forget boring new installation
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com/

Send your spam abuse report to: , that will work.

No it doesnt.

I does work, because I received a response from google.

At this point, many people have received canned replies, are
feeling that by receiving a canned reply, there is nothing being
done. I feel this is a premature conclusion, that if Google
were to take any measures it would not be an individual reading
the emails and manually tracking down spammers (as the volume of
spam is just too high for that). Instead I suspect they would
use an automated system that reads the email and forms some sort
of database which is used to mechanize an action. If this is
true, the main interference of this working is people thinking
it does no good, thus not reporting the spam, so too few reports
are made to accumulate enough data for an action.

The point is that, after that canned response, nothing else appears
to ever happen. This also applies to things that are easily
detected and killed, which have continued to plague google groups
for years.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
http://cbfalconer.home.att.net



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:29:18 -0400, CBFalconer
wrote:


At this point, many people have received canned replies, are
feeling that by receiving a canned reply, there is nothing being
done. I feel this is a premature conclusion, that if Google
were to take any measures it would not be an individual reading
the emails and manually tracking down spammers (as the volume of
spam is just too high for that). Instead I suspect they would
use an automated system that reads the email and forms some sort
of database which is used to mechanize an action. If this is
true, the main interference of this working is people thinking
it does no good, thus not reporting the spam, so too few reports
are made to accumulate enough data for an action.

The point is that, after that canned response, nothing else appears
to ever happen. This also applies to things that are easily
detected and killed, which have continued to plague google groups
for years.


I agree it is a problem, but which has the greater chance of
success, reporting spam or not reporting it?

While Google may feel insulated from this to some extent,
the volume of reports is still an indicator of public
awareness, which Google would have to consider if they
really want to gain ground it their highly competitive
industry.

It's a personal decision, if the spam is not worth the
effort, one won't report it. If/when reporting it will ever
matter, it has to be reported. Given enough reports, Google
has to eventually become aware of the negative image
resulting from ignoring complaints. This is essentially the
same as any other area of life, that people will ignore a
mild complaint untill they perceive it will really effect
them if they continue ignoring it. With Google that only
comes through volume (of complaints). Sooner or later the
masses do have to be considered a significant constituant of
Google's core audience, especially as they continually try
to expand services.

kony wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:29:18 -0400, CBFalconer
wrote:


At this point, many people have received canned replies, are
feeling that by receiving a canned reply, there is nothing being
done. I feel this is a premature conclusion, that if Google
were to take any measures it would not be an individual reading
the emails and manually tracking down spammers (as the volume of
spam is just too high for that). Instead I suspect they would
use an automated system that reads the email and forms some sort
of database which is used to mechanize an action. If this is
true, the main interference of this working is people thinking
it does no good, thus not reporting the spam, so too few reports
are made to accumulate enough data for an action.

The point is that, after that canned response, nothing else appears
to ever happen. This also applies to things that are easily detected
and killed, which have continued to plague google groups for years.

I agree it is a problem, but which has the greater
chance of success, reporting spam or not reporting it?

No difference when google is involved.

While Google may feel insulated from this to some extent,
the volume of reports is still an indicator of public awareness,
which Google would have to consider if they really want to
gain ground it their highly competitive industry.

The number of sites that allow users to post to usenet is microscopic
and google completely dominates that particular aspect of the industry.

They can ignore what anyone thinks about spam.

It's a personal decision, if the spam is not worth the effort,
one won't report it. If/when reporting it will ever matter,

Pity it doesnt when google is where its posted from.

it has to be reported.

Nope.

Given enough reports, Google has to eventually become aware
of the negative image resulting from ignoring complaints.

They have been aware for a long time and dont care.

This is essentially the same as any other area of life,

Nope, nothing like.

that people will ignore a mild complaint untill they perceive
it will really effect them if they continue ignoring it.

Taint gunna happen with google, because there
will be no effect when they continue to ignore it.

With Google that only comes through volume (of complaints).

Wont happen even if everyone who cares complains.

Sooner or later the masses do have to be considered a significant constituant
of Google's core audience, especially as they continually try to expand services.

Pity that those who dont like the spam in usenet are such a tiny subset of that.

Rod Speed wrote:



Pity that those who dont like the spam in usenet are such a tiny subset of that.

How do you know?

1. Spam causes clutter, but we can live with that up to a point.

2. Unchecked spam give the spammers the impression that the ng is
a valid advertising media that ought to be exploited.

3. At the ternary stage, spammers start competing with each other
for this newfound media.

4. Eventually, the ng becomes flooded with spam and dies. No one
in the ng dislikes the spam because there is no longer anyone.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:05:44 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


The number of sites that allow users to post to usenet is microscopic
and google completely dominates that particular aspect of the industry.

Agreed, but there is an ever growing group of websites that
are leeching usenet content to build their own forums which
also providing usenet posting functionality. The lesser
technologically evolving nations are likely to be using this
web interface to usenet more and more in the future.



They can ignore what anyone thinks about spam.

That could be said about any company PR decision and
sometimes it's a big gamble.