Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Spam\s+etc\s*$/>

Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*LF\:\s+Spam\s+etc\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. LF: SPAM ETC (score: 1): Author: "mal hamilton" <[email protected]>; Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:47:44 +0100; The recent problem was not BS but some servers seeing amateur abbreviations as SPAM and stopping forwarding via BS g3kev; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2012-09/msg00363.html (7,767 bytes)
2. Re: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: "Alberto di Bene" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:15:49 +0100; Try something like mailwasher. It only downloads the headers rather than the bodies, and when you get it trained you can dismiss the spam quite quickly. Yes, I endorse this suggestion. I am using it; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00018.html (9,081 bytes)
3. Re: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: "captbrian" <[email protected]>; Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 08:55:40 +0100; ah! Not so elementary . Perhaps the clue is in the call sign and signal-mode M0RIA - RTTY Yes, they certainly can. The text-only e-mail client I use with this account, though, allows for viewing the; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00035.html (9,392 bytes)
4. Re: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: "captbrian" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:32:59 +0100; remember that anyone can write "Re:LF: " "at the start of the subject to make it SEEM as if it came thro' the reflector. Try it. It may not have come from the reflector at all. Sherlock Holmes - G3GV; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00037.html (11,368 bytes)
5. LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: "hamilton mal" <[email protected]>; Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:44:14 +0100; The spam situation is getting out of hand totally. For every LF message I am now getting about 30 spam msgs daily. I delete immediately but it takes a lot of time to download this rubbish. I am not s; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00102.html (10,036 bytes)
6. RE: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: "John W Gould" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 23:24:40 +0100; If anyone is the moderator it's me folks - I started the whole thing some years ago, and yes I am monitoring the discussion! It's interesting to note that few apart from John and Dave have actually a; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00138.html (11,698 bytes)
7. Re: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: "Michael Oexner" <[email protected]>; Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:48:03 +0100; Hi all, Try something like mailwasher. All good and well, but as I said yesterday (a) it's not 100% effective, and (b) one utterly miniscule change to the list rules would virtually eliminate any spa; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00178.html (9,688 bytes)
8. Re: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: [email protected]; Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:55:10 EST; remember that anyone can write "Re:LF: " at the start of the subject to make it SEEM as if it came thro' the reflector. Yes, they certainly can. The text-only e-mail client I use with this account,; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00219.html (8,725 bytes)
9. Re: LF: Spam etc (score: 1): Author: [email protected]; Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:14:57 EST; It is not coming in through the LF reflector Actually, some of it _is_ coming in through the reflector; the false PayPal messages and the Nigerian bank transfer scams being recent instances. Seldom; /rsgb_lf_group-archives/html/rsgb_lf_group/2003-12/msg00220.html (9,674 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]