18.609 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of dubious origins

From: Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty willard.mccarty_at_kcl.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:09:17 +0000

               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 18, No. 609.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                     Submit to: humanist_at_princeton.edu

   [1] From: Norman Hinton <hinton_at_springnet1.com> (14)
         Subject: Re: 18.605 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of
                 dubious origins?

   [2] From: Pat Galloway <galloway_at_ischool.utexas.edu> (5)
         Subject: Re: 18.605 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of
                 dubious origins?

   [3] From: "pjmoran" <noci_at_COX.NET> (27)
         Subject: Re: "spam," Vol. 18, No. 605.

   [4] From: "Jim Marchand" <marchand_at_uiuc.edu> (7)
         Subject: spam

   [5] From: "Stuart Dunn" <s.e.dunn_at_reading.ac.uk> (21)
         Subject: RE: 18.605 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of
                 dubious origins?

         Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:48:11 +0000
         From: Norman Hinton <hinton_at_springnet1.com>
         Subject: Re: 18.605 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of
dubious origins?

Willard, when my ISP put in a spam filter, most List serve came through
fine except Medieval-L -- and I still have t o go every day to make sure I
have not lost notes from that List.

I'm pretty sure it's a function of (a)how the List identifies itself and
(b) how the filter is set up to detect the sender(s). When I asked my ISP
if they could change their filter routine they got rather huffy about it.
The longer the filter runs, the fewer Mediev-l notes get intercepted, but
every day I find a few. Apparently nothing can be done about it -- just
read your Spam filter list carefully every day, and make sure you mark ()if
you can) both to accept this message and to accept all future messages from
the individual who sent it (this does not, alas, seem to work when the List
is given as the individual sender).

A friend who runs another List told me that dealing with Spam filters is
more trouble than dealing with Spam....

         Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:48:27 +0000
         From: Pat Galloway <galloway_at_ischool.utexas.edu>
         Subject: Re: 18.605 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of
dubious origins?

Presumably this is due to my email address's having been mined out of
listservs (like Humanist) amd used as a spoofed source of said preserved
substance. I'd say mea culpa except that it could happen to any of us.
Apologies to Glasgow but I don't reckon I should stop posting?
Pat Galloway

         Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:49:17 +0000
         From: "pjmoran" <noci_at_COX.NET>
         Subject: Re: "spam," Vol. 18, No. 605.

   Vol. 18, No. 605.

You asked, "Are there practical means on offer for a group such as Humanist
to exchange e-mail without running this risk?"

I don't think so. One academic's prime rib is another academic's spam.
With automatic controls and buzzwords governing the spread of intellectual
nutrition, the receiving party is in the ascendancy. Even the string "h u
m a n" could trigger a spam notification. Here in the "Bible Belt" of the
US, the word "human" is often suspect. Christian fundamentalists seem to
consider it a red flag, signaling a religious humanism (as an ethical code
that "violates tenets of Christianity"). Lest you believe I am overstating,
I offer this example. One local high school teacher was told that a
certain female student would not be taking the decision-making portion of
the course in question. Her father had come to school and said, "My
daughter will not be making decisions. I will make her decisions for her
until she is married. Then her husband will consult the Bible and make the
decisions." There is a continuum between short-sighted religious
conservatives and liberal "anarchy." I can easily see where some comments
in the Humanist could be blocked as spam.

Patricia J. Moran, Ph.D. Candidate,
Florida State University

         Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:49:59 +0000
         From: "Jim Marchand" <marchand_at_uiuc.edu>
         Subject: spam

I don't think there is any answer, Willard. It is so imperative that we get
rid of spam (I receive about 200 a day) that we must risk losing some real
mail. It is going to get worse, and today's newspapers are full of the
problem. Perhaps each of us who receives Humanist through a university
hook-up could inform the university that the filter should avoid Humanist.
Noise filters are always uncertain. I am afraid that this, the necessity of
avoiding phishers and the like, etc. is going to get much worse. Que faire?

         Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:50:37 +0000
         From: "Stuart Dunn" <s.e.dunn_at_reading.ac.uk>
         Subject: RE: 18.605 avoiding heavily preserved tinned meat of
dubious origins?

My university IT service allows you to "whitelist" certain email
addresses or domains. For example I could whitelist
"humanist_at_princeton.edu" or just "Princeton.edu" (I haven't had to), and
any mail sent to me from that address or domain respectively would
automatically bypass the heavily preserved tinned meat filter. I would
be surprised if other institutions don't have similar arrangements.

Best wishes,

Dr Stuart Dunn
Programme Research Assistant
AHRB ICT in Arts and Humanities Research Programme
School of Modern Languages
University of Reading
Reading RG6 6AA

URL: http://www.ahrb.ac.uk/ict
AHRB ICT mailing list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/ahrbict

Tel: 0118 378 5064
Fax: 0118 378 8333
Received on Wed Mar 02 2005 - 06:15:51 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 06:15:53 EST