PDA

View Full Version : new email address


rw
September 23rd, 2003, 02:31 PM
I've had to change my email address because of the Swen Worm. If anyone
on ROFF tried to send me email in the past couple of days I probably
didn't get it.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Oldfrat
September 24th, 2003, 08:47 PM
FWIW, the stream seems to be slowing down as people realize they have it and
clean their machines. I'm down to about 3 an hour now, a huge improvement!


"rw" > wrote in message
m...
> I've had to change my email address because of the Swen Worm. If anyone
> on ROFF tried to send me email in the past couple of days I probably
> didn't get it.
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>

Kevin Vang
September 24th, 2003, 09:10 PM
Oldfrat wrote:

> FWIW, the stream seems to be slowing down as people realize they have it and
> clean their machines. I'm down to about 3 an hour now, a huge improvement!
>
>
> "rw" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>I've had to change my email address because of the Swen Worm. If anyone
>>on ROFF tried to send me email in the past couple of days I probably
>>didn't get it.


I think I may have solved the problem - I noticed that the messages
I was getting didn't actually have my email address in them, so I
created a filter to delete all messages which do not contain the
string 'vang' in the "To: " field, and I haven't seen one since.

Kevin

Wayne Harrison
September 24th, 2003, 11:16 PM
"Kevin Vang" > wrote in message
...
> Oldfrat wrote:
>
> > FWIW, the stream seems to be slowing down as people realize they have it
and
> > clean their machines. I'm down to about 3 an hour now, a huge
improvement!
> >
> >
> > "rw" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >
> >>I've had to change my email address because of the Swen Worm. If anyone
> >>on ROFF tried to send me email in the past couple of days I probably
> >>didn't get it.
>
>
> I think I may have solved the problem - I noticed that the messages
> I was getting didn't actually have my email address in them, so I
> created a filter to delete all messages which do not contain the
> string 'vang' in the "To: " field, and I haven't seen one since.
>
> Kevin

kevin: HELP!!! could you call me and try to explain how i do that? i
use email through outlook express, and i am *inundated* by the *******s.

336-558-4021
yfitons
wayno
>

Kevin Vang
September 25th, 2003, 05:14 AM
[This followup was posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article >,
says...
>
> kevin: HELP!!! could you call me and try to explain how i do that? i
> use email through outlook express, and i am *inundated* by the *******s.
>
> 336-558-4021
> yfitons
> wayno
> >


I'm not an expert on OE, but give this a try:

1. In OE, click on "Tools", then "Message Rules", then "Mail".
2. In box number 1, click on the box "Where the To line contains people"
3. In box number 2, click "Delete it."
4. In box number 3, click on the "contains people" (it should be
underlined and in blue.)
5. This will bring up a new dialog box. At the top line, enter
" and click the "Add" button.
6. Now click the "Options" button, which will bring up yet another
new dialog box.
7. Where it says "Apply rule if", click on "Message does not contain
the people below".
8. Now click "OK" on all of the buttons to close all of the dialog
boxes.

That should take care of most of them - let me know how it works
for you.

Kevin

riverman
September 25th, 2003, 10:09 AM
"Kevin Vang" > wrote in message
...
> [This followup was posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly and a copy was sent
> to the cited author.]
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > kevin: HELP!!! could you call me and try to explain how i do that?
i
> > use email through outlook express, and i am *inundated* by the *******s.
> >
> > 336-558-4021
> > yfitons
> > wayno
> > >
>
>
> I'm not an expert on OE, but give this a try:
>
> 1. In OE, click on "Tools", then "Message Rules", then "Mail".
> 2. In box number 1, click on the box "Where the To line contains people"
> 3. In box number 2, click "Delete it."
> 4. In box number 3, click on the "contains people" (it should be
> underlined and in blue.)
> 5. This will bring up a new dialog box. At the top line, enter
> " and click the "Add" button.
> 6. Now click the "Options" button, which will bring up yet another
> new dialog box.
> 7. Where it says "Apply rule if", click on "Message does not contain
> the people below".
> 8. Now click "OK" on all of the buttons to close all of the dialog
> boxes.
>
> That should take care of most of them - let me know how it works
> for you.
>
>

I use Yahoo, and the problem is that it only sends it to the outbox, which
still is part of my total storage space. Anyone know how to tell the trash
to empty every hour?

--riverman

Herman Nijland
September 25th, 2003, 10:25 AM
riverman wrote:

> "Kevin Vang" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[This followup was posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly and a copy was sent
>>to the cited author.]
>>
>>In article >,
says...
>>
>>> kevin: HELP!!! could you call me and try to explain how i do that?
>
> i
>
>>>use email through outlook express, and i am *inundated* by the *******s.
>>>
>>>336-558-4021
>>>yfitons
>>>wayno
>>>
>>
>>I'm not an expert on OE, but give this a try:
>>
>>1. In OE, click on "Tools", then "Message Rules", then "Mail".
>>2. In box number 1, click on the box "Where the To line contains people"
>>3. In box number 2, click "Delete it."
>>4. In box number 3, click on the "contains people" (it should be
>>underlined and in blue.)
>>5. This will bring up a new dialog box. At the top line, enter
" and click the "Add" button.
>>6. Now click the "Options" button, which will bring up yet another
>>new dialog box.
>>7. Where it says "Apply rule if", click on "Message does not contain
>>the people below".
>>8. Now click "OK" on all of the buttons to close all of the dialog
>>boxes.
>>
>>That should take care of most of them - let me know how it works
>>for you.
>>
>>
>
>
> I use Yahoo, and the problem is that it only sends it to the outbox, which
> still is part of my total storage space. Anyone know how to tell the trash
> to empty every hour?
>
> --riverman
>

You can't, as far as I found out so far. The only solution is to log in
regularly and clear the bulkmail folder.

--
Herman

walt winter
September 25th, 2003, 03:41 PM
rw wrote:
> Herman Nijland wrote:
>
>>
>> You can't, as far as I found out so far. The only solution is to log
>> in regularly and clear the bulkmail folder.
>
>
> Yeah, that's really convenient. :-)
>
> California just enacted an anti-spam law that provides for fines of up
> to $1000 per spam message and up to $1,000,000 (!) per bulk mailing.
> They should have also included a good caning. If some asshole judge
> doesn't knock it down (like with the national do-not-call list), it
> might have some effect. If nothing else, I'd love to see a few spammers
> get nailed.
>

rw, do you happen to have the web addie for that do-not-call list?

wally

Stan Gula
September 25th, 2003, 04:16 PM
"rw" > wrote in message
m...
>
> http://www.donotcall.gov/
>
> I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
> idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
> legislatures actually listen.

FWIW - Massachusetts implemented a do-not-call law in January (prohibiting
in-state calls only of course) and I signed up immediately. I think I get
maybe 1 or 2 junk calls a week now. Sweet.

walt winter
September 25th, 2003, 04:18 PM
rw wrote:
> walt winter wrote:
>
>>
>> rw, do you happen to have the web addie for that do-not-call list?
>
>
> http://www.donotcall.gov/
>
> I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
> idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
> legislatures actually listen.
>

thanks steve. as i was watching the news last night.... i had to
laugh at the imbecilic OK judge's actions..... i'm pert sure that
dumbass is gonna be receiving some calls..... justice ;-)

--wally

Tim J.
September 25th, 2003, 04:28 PM
"Stan Gula" wrote...
> "rw" wrote...
> >
> > http://www.donotcall.gov/
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
> > idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
> > legislatures actually listen.
>
> FWIW - Massachusetts implemented a do-not-call law in January (prohibiting
> in-state calls only of course) and I signed up immediately. I think I get
> maybe 1 or 2 junk calls a week now. Sweet.

Yeah, it works pretty well, AFAICT. I used to have one of those TeleZapper
devices hooked up because we were getting 10-15 telemarketing calls on some
days. I'm not sure if that device did anything or not, besides separating me
from some $$. Now we might get one or two a week at most. Interesting that these
seem to be from our local and long distance phone carriers under the guise of a
"service call."
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

rw
September 25th, 2003, 04:36 PM
Herman Nijland wrote:
>
> You can't, as far as I found out so far. The only solution is to log in
> regularly and clear the bulkmail folder.

Yeah, that's really convenient. :-)

California just enacted an anti-spam law that provides for fines of up
to $1000 per spam message and up to $1,000,000 (!) per bulk mailing.
They should have also included a good caning. If some asshole judge
doesn't knock it down (like with the national do-not-call list), it
might have some effect. If nothing else, I'd love to see a few spammers
get nailed.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Kevin Vang
September 25th, 2003, 04:49 PM
Stan Gula wrote:

> FWIW - Massachusetts implemented a do-not-call law in January (prohibiting
> in-state calls only of course) and I signed up immediately. I think I get
> maybe 1 or 2 junk calls a week now. Sweet.

ND has an do-not-call list that takes effect Nov. 1, and I
can't wait.

In the meantime, one simple thing you can do is not answer the phone
until the third or fourth ring. Most of the call centers have
their auto-dialers configured to let the phone ring twice and
then move on to the next number.

Kevin

rw
September 25th, 2003, 04:55 PM
walt winter wrote:
>
> rw, do you happen to have the web addie for that do-not-call list?

http://www.donotcall.gov/

I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
legislatures actually listen.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Herman Nijland
September 25th, 2003, 05:30 PM
Stan Gula wrote:

> "rw" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>http://www.donotcall.gov/
>>
>>I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
>>idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
>>legislatures actually listen.
>
>
> FWIW - Massachusetts implemented a do-not-call law in January (prohibiting
> in-state calls only of course) and I signed up immediately. I think I get
> maybe 1 or 2 junk calls a week now. Sweet.
>
>

They used to call us during dinner, for all kinds of ****. Standard
reply - 'Do you have a moment?' Finish your meal, take a cup of coffee,
and, if they are still on the line, which some actually do, have a good
laugh.

--
Herman

Ernie
September 25th, 2003, 05:47 PM
They should re-route all telemarketing calls to that stupid judges phone.
Ernie

"walt winter" > wrote in message
...
> rw wrote:
> > walt winter wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> rw, do you happen to have the web addie for that do-not-call list?
> >
> >
> > http://www.donotcall.gov/
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
> > idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
> > legislatures actually listen.
> >
>
> thanks steve. as i was watching the news last night.... i had to
> laugh at the imbecilic OK judge's actions..... i'm pert sure that
> dumbass is gonna be receiving some calls..... justice ;-)
>
> --wally
>

Snoop
September 25th, 2003, 06:01 PM
Tim J. wrote:

> Yeah, it works pretty well, AFAICT. I used to have one of those TeleZapper
> devices hooked up because we were getting 10-15 telemarketing calls on some
> days. I'm not sure if that device did anything or not, besides separating me
> from some $$. Now we might get one or two a week at most. Interesting that these
> seem to be from our local and long distance phone carriers under the guise of a
> "service call."

Here's a free "TeleZapper": http://www.brockmoore.com/Scams/Telezapper.htm

Snoop






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Church
September 26th, 2003, 01:18 AM
"Tim J." > wrote in
:


"Tim J."
>> wrote in message
>... . I used to have one of
those TeleZapper
> devices hooked up because we were getting 10-15 telemarketing calls on
some
> days. I'm not sure if that device did anything or not, besides
> separating
me
> from some $$. Now we might get one or two a week at most. Interesting
> that
these
> seem to be from our local and long distance phone carriers under the
> guise
of a
> "service call." (some snippage here)

.......am I the only one who uses CallWave in this bunch? Wonderful piece
of software that the CallWave folks install on your PC, costs $35@ yr in
two installments.(appears on your phone bill) We haven't been
inconvenienced one time since signing up for this service. When someone
calls our number, CallWave will pickup the call, let them record it,
then sound a "phone ring" on the PC.
Nine times out of ten if it is a spammer, they just hang up. If
it's a friend or family they leave a message and CallWave also shows
their caller ID. We can call them back at our leisure, or not.
Callwave even identifies "telemarketers" and hangs up on them. CallWave
can be used with dial-up or DSL/cable as well. No interest in this
company, I just hope to hell they prosper and stick around.
<http://www.callwave.com>

Frank Church
....the undisturbed

Jeff Miller
September 26th, 2003, 03:38 AM
i only wish i could be there to watch wayno follow your kind
instruction...<g>

Kevin Vang wrote:

> [This followup was posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly and a copy was sent
> to the cited author.]
>
> In article >,
> says...
>
>> kevin: HELP!!! could you call me and try to explain how i do that? i
>>use email through outlook express, and i am *inundated* by the *******s.
>>
>>336-558-4021
>>yfitons
>>wayno
>>
>
>
> I'm not an expert on OE, but give this a try:
>
> 1. In OE, click on "Tools", then "Message Rules", then "Mail".
> 2. In box number 1, click on the box "Where the To line contains people"
> 3. In box number 2, click "Delete it."
> 4. In box number 3, click on the "contains people" (it should be
> underlined and in blue.)
> 5. This will bring up a new dialog box. At the top line, enter
> " and click the "Add" button.
> 6. Now click the "Options" button, which will bring up yet another
> new dialog box.
> 7. Where it says "Apply rule if", click on "Message does not contain
> the people below".
> 8. Now click "OK" on all of the buttons to close all of the dialog
> boxes.
>
> That should take care of most of them - let me know how it works
> for you.
>
> Kevin

September 26th, 2003, 08:35 AM
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 15:16:49 GMT, "Stan Gula"
> wrote:

>"rw" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> http://www.donotcall.gov/
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that the Congress is going to fix that Oklahoma judge's
>> idiocy, and damn quick. When 50 million people say they want something,
>> legislatures actually listen.
>
>FWIW - Massachusetts implemented a do-not-call law in January (prohibiting
>in-state calls only of course) and I signed up immediately. I think I get
>maybe 1 or 2 junk calls a week now. Sweet.
>


Same in MN. We almost never get any calls since I signed on to it.
Those we do are mainly the 'allowed' kind. Some business that we've
had contact with in the past however many years. I just tell them to
put us on their do not call lists. We get about two a month from
charities about used stuff pickups and I leave those alone.

I doubt the judge was idiotic. Probably following strict
interpretations of law. They aren't, generally, allowed to mess
around with doing what's right rather than what's legal. So the judge
tossed it back to Congress, who didn't give authority along with the
orders.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Brimbum
September 26th, 2003, 08:47 AM
Jeff wrote:>i only wish i could be there to watch wayno follow your kind
>instruction...<g>
>

Priceless !

Big Dale

Herman Nijland
September 26th, 2003, 10:21 AM
Kevin Vang wrote:
> Stan Gula wrote:
>
>> FWIW - Massachusetts implemented a do-not-call law in January
>> (prohibiting
>> in-state calls only of course) and I signed up immediately. I think I
>> get
>> maybe 1 or 2 junk calls a week now. Sweet.
>
>
> ND has an do-not-call list that takes effect Nov. 1, and I
> can't wait.
>
> In the meantime, one simple thing you can do is not answer the phone
> until the third or fourth ring. Most of the call centers have
> their auto-dialers configured to let the phone ring twice and
> then move on to the next number.
>
> Kevin
>

Another option is to have some fun with them. There is a nice
anti-telemarketeer script here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~egbg/counterscript.html

--
Herman

Wayne Harrison
September 26th, 2003, 11:33 AM
"Jeff Miller" > wrote in message
news:hHNcb.3473$k74.755@lakeread05...
> i only wish i could be there to watch wayno follow your kind
> instruction...<g>
>
> Kevin Vang wrote:


hilarious. i read through the damn stuff, and didn't even go to email. :)

but thanks, anyway, kev.

yfitons
wayno

JR
September 26th, 2003, 03:19 PM
rw wrote:

> Well, if that judge wasn't idiotic enough for you, another Federal judge
> has blocked the Do Not Call List because it (get this one) violates the
> telemarkers' free speech rights. This is really serious because it's a
> Constitutional issue that Congress can't merely fix with a quick vote.
> Not only that, but it opens the door for the telemarketers to overturn
> the do-not-call lists already implemented in many states, including the
> one you say is working so well in Minnesota.

An irony is that the names and phone numbers of those who have
registered on the national do-not-call list have apparently already been
communicated to the telemarketer associations. A conspiracy theorist
might start believing the whole thing was a magnificent marketing
ruse.....

JR

rw
September 26th, 2003, 03:37 PM
wrote:
>
> I doubt the judge was idiotic. Probably following strict
> interpretations of law. They aren't, generally, allowed to mess
> around with doing what's right rather than what's legal. So the judge
> tossed it back to Congress, who didn't give authority along with the
> orders.

Well, if that judge wasn't idiotic enough for you, another Federal judge
has blocked the Do Not Call List because it (get this one) violates the
telemarkers' free speech rights. This is really serious because it's a
Constitutional issue that Congress can't merely fix with a quick vote.
Not only that, but it opens the door for the telemarketers to overturn
the do-not-call lists already implemented in many states, including the
one you say is working so well in Minnesota.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Kevin Vang
September 26th, 2003, 04:13 PM
Wayne Harrison wrote:
>
> hilarious. i read through the damn stuff, and didn't even go to email. :)
>
> but thanks, anyway, kev.
>
> yfitons
> wayno


Really, it's not that hard (I promise!) Just go through it
step by step, or get someone to do it for you. It's easier
to do than it is to explain, like a lot of other things in
life.

Kevin
(Really!)

September 27th, 2003, 05:21 AM
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:37:13 -0700, rw
> wrote:

wrote:

>
>Well, if that judge wasn't idiotic enough for you, another Federal judge
>has blocked the Do Not Call List because it (get this one) violates the
>telemarkers' free speech rights. This is really serious because it's a
>Constitutional issue that Congress can't merely fix with a quick vote.
>Not only that, but it opens the door for the telemarketers to overturn
>the do-not-call lists already implemented in many states, including the
>one you say is working so well in Minnesota.


Aw, ****.

I don't think there's ever been a great big trial between free speech
and commercial speech, has there? The old movie 'codes' and the TV
advertising all were pretty voluntary (well, voluntary with
thumbscrews and arm twisting) and didn't go up the court system.

These jerks will probably take it there. It's going to take the
Supremes to decide it once and for all, I suppose, now that they've
thought of it that way. But I do so value my right of freedom not to
listen. And not to have my husband answering the phone and
encouraging them by buying stuff. We've gotten lots less stuff since
the MN calling cut off went into effect, too. He's just not capable
of letting things go to the answering machine. And sometimes not
capable of refusing to listen or refusing to buy.


Hmm. How about that right to be secure in our homes? Nope, that's
just against the government. Phooey.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

September 27th, 2003, 05:27 AM
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:21:48 +0200, Herman Nijland >
wrote:

>Another option is to have some fun with them. There is a nice
>anti-telemarketeer script here:
>http://www.xs4all.nl/~egbg/counterscript.html


That's evil. I like it.

If I had the patience, I'd do it.
_IF_ the do not call list gets sidetracked, I might.

When they used to have computerized calls, I'd switch over to the C64
(only one line back then) and type gibberish at them. I once had the
patience for 30 minutes of that.

The ones I find most offensive are the ones where they demand you call
them back. Damfino what they're looking for. They always say that
our phone is not on their call list and then, a month later we get
another one.

There's one they seem to have stopped using where a recording asks you
to hold the line for an important call. I think there's a good reason
they stopped that one.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Herman Nijland
September 27th, 2003, 09:34 AM
One counterquestion which quite often worked for me: 'Would you take a
decision of such financial importance just because someone you don't
know calls you during dinner?'

If yes - My God, you are stupid
If no - So why do you call me?

--
Herman