Hi Gang
The spam level with this Yahoo Group is getting out of control. We
recently had a similar situation with the Yahoo Carat Group. So let me
say it again and loudly. If we do not want spam we need an ACTIVE
administrator that looks at all postings coming in for a while
rejecting those that are spam and removing the addresses of the
spammers. Secondly all new applications to the Group should be
reviewed by the administrator and all questionable applications turned
down. Yes this requires a little work especially now to fix the spam
problem but if left unchecked we will be swamped with spam.
I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
Group. If we do not have an administrator is there anyone sufficiently
motivated to do the work. As soon as the spammers are cleared out of
the system the work load will fall to an acceptable level.
Dave

On Jun 29, 8:32*am, kd6veb > wrote:

> If we do not want spam we need an ACTIVE
> administrator that looks at all postings coming in for a while
> rejecting those that are spam and removing the addresses of the
> spammers. Secondly all new applications to the Group should be
> reviewed by the administrator...

Welcome to Usenet. Heh heh.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:32:26 -0700, kd6veb wrote:

> I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
> Group.
>
This is an unmoderated USENET group.

If spam bothers you, stop using Google Groups and install a decent
newsreader - one with a good killfile facility like Pan or Agent.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Jun 29, 10:53*am, Martin Gregorie >
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:32:26 -0700, kd6veb wrote:
> > I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
> > Group.
>
> This is an unmoderated USENET group.
>

Sad but true. To all who have enjoyed the usefulness of this soaring
group: DO NOT CLICK ON THE SPAM MESSAGES. Stay clear...ignore
them...do not buy...or respond to them IN ANY WAY.

They are being monitored for reply traffic. No responses MAY give them
negative reply statistics and a reason to move off the group and seek
more fertile selling ground.

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:32:26 -0700, kd6veb wrote:
>
>> I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
>> Group.
>>
> This is an unmoderated USENET group.
>
> If spam bothers you, stop using Google Groups and install a decent
> newsreader - one with a good killfile facility like Pan or Agent.

Yep, Google is the problem. I am using a newsreader (Outlook Express) fed by a
free NNTP server (Eternal-September.org) and see virtually NO SPAM.

Dump Google Groups!

Vaughn

On Jun 29, 10:27*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:32:26 -0700, kd6veb wrote:
>
> >> I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
> >> Group.
>
> > This is an unmoderated USENET group.
>
> > If spam bothers you, stop using Google Groups and install a decent
> > newsreader - one with a good killfile facility like Pan or Agent.
>
> Yep, Google is the problem. *I am using a newsreader (Outlook Express) fed by a
> free NNTP server (Eternal-September.org) and see virtually NO SPAM.
>
> Dump Google Groups!
>
> Vaughn

Not familiar how to set that up

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:56:29 -0700, wrote:

> On Jun 29, 10:27Â*am, "vaughn" > wrote:
>> "Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:32:26 -0700, kd6veb wrote:
>>
>> >> I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
>> >> Group.
>>
>> > This is an unmoderated USENET group.
>>
>> > If spam bothers you, stop using Google Groups and install a decent
>> > newsreader - one with a good killfile facility like Pan or Agent.
>>
>> Yep, Google is the problem. Â*I am using a newsreader (Outlook Express)
>> fed by a free NNTP server (Eternal-September.org) and see virtually NO
>> SPAM.
>>
>> Dump Google Groups!
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> Not familiar how to set that up
>
If you're using Windows,
- a good newsreader to start with is Forte's Agent,
http://www.forteinc.com/ It has a 3 month free trial period

- Mozilla Thunderbird, http://www.mozilla.org/
Its filtering and killfiling isn't nearly as good as Agent.

- you can also try XPN, http://xpn.altervista.org/index-en.html
I haven't tried this one.

I you use Linux.
- I like Pan, http://pan.rebelbase.com/
- You can also try Thunderbird or XPN

I have no recommendations for Macs.

Install the program you want to try, subscribe to the news groups you are
interested in and have fun. Google Groups started out as the Deja Vu news
archive, so USENET groups have the same names that you're used to. I find
that reading USENET with a newsreader is generally faster than with a web
browser because a single key press skips to the next post: no scrolling
needed to find an unread message. Plus, all the good ones have kill-files
that hold lists of authors or subjects that you want to ignore.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

kd6veb wrote:
> Hi Gang
> The spam level with this Yahoo Group is getting out of control. We
> recently had a similar situation with the Yahoo Carat Group. So let me
> say it again and loudly. If we do not want spam we need an ACTIVE
> administrator that looks at all postings coming in for a while
> rejecting those that are spam and removing the addresses of the
> spammers. Secondly all new applications to the Group should be
> reviewed by the administrator and all questionable applications turned
> down. Yes this requires a little work especially now to fix the spam
> problem but if left unchecked we will be swamped with spam.
> I assume this Group does have an administrator who can service the
> Group. If we do not have an administrator is there anyone sufficiently
> motivated to do the work. As soon as the spammers are cleared out of
> the system the work load will fall to an acceptable level.
> Dave

Hi Dave.
This is not a Google Group.
There is not a newsgroup moderator. That's an onerous task that stops
all posts onto a group until they have been read and passed by one or
more moderators. NGs are failing frequently these days.
But MODERATED NGs are failing/ have failed faster.

Sorry

Brian W