Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
it's in tools..

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/7/2022 2:02 AM, TTman wrote:
> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group - it's
> in tools..

That's possible in virtually all NNTP clients.

But, most limit the filters to just header content;
you can't filter based on *body* content. You can
do much more if you suck up the feed to a server and
do the filtering "server-side" (it also lets you benefit
from that filtering even if you use a different
client/host)

And, you have to be a bit more creative to deal
with the nym-shifters -- but that's not really hard.

[filtering based on cross-posting is a good first cut]

On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
> it's in tools..
>

There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
a glance to spot a post you might want to read.

On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:02:09 +0100) it happened TTman
<kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote in <tcnv2i$g9ad$1@dont-email.me>:

>Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>it's in tools..

Its easy in the newsreader I wrote, NewsFleX:
Just activated the filter again due to too much noise
You can filter on almost anything.

>--
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Stupid commercial you are hereby filtered!!!
LOL
hehe

On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>> it's in tools..
>>
>
>There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>a glance to spot a post you might want to read.

There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.

And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a
stranger will ask a reasonable question.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

On 8/7/2022 17:00, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>> it's in tools..
>>>
>>
>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read.
>
> There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
> his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
> follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.
>
> And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a
> stranger will ask a reasonable question.
>

Exactly, this is how I see it, too. I typically monitor the group with
the browser via google groups and use the newsreader only if I want
to post.

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 10:00:26 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
> >On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
> >> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
> >> it's in tools..
> >>
> >
> >There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
> >a glance to spot a post you might want to read.
> There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
> his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
> follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.

Yes, and others are very intermittent posters providing tons of pointless opinion and drivel, the occasionally posting something worth reading.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 8/7/2022 3:04 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group - it's
>> in tools..
>
> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
> a glance to spot a post you might want to read.

The problem with an unfiltered feed is that you have to keep track
of who you want to read/ignore.

The problem with filters is you need to manually (in so much as you
have to select the pertinent criteria) create/maintain them.

My approach has been to let an agent sort through the feed using
criteria that it "notices" me using IMPLICITLY. E.g., if I've
"learned" to not open certain types of posts -- or to regret opening
them /ex post factum/ -- let the agent *notice* that I've opted
not to open the post (because my client didn't send a request for
the message BODY to the NNTP server/agent) and ignore them *for* me.

If I ignore folks who quote 99% of a message and add (bottom post)
a one line comment, let the agent ignore them. If I ignore posts
who talk about Trump... or, resort to silly profanity... or...

(these aren't trivial to do with existing filter tools)

I don't like my phone ringing when I know it's a call that I'm NOT
going to answer (based on some observable criteria) so why not do
the same for USENET posts, email, etc.?

Machines are great for remembering/enforcing behaviors/decisions!

On 8/7/2022 18:59, Don Y wrote:
> On 8/7/2022 3:04 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this
>>> group - it's in tools..
>>
>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read. >
> The problem with an unfiltered feed is that you have to keep track
> of who you want to read/ignore.
>
> The problem with filters is you need to manually (in so much as you
> have to select the pertinent criteria) create/maintain them.

That is easier to do with this newsgroup. Try coping with my email
input :). Lately only hundreds of spam messages per day, used to be
thousands (spammers got tired? Some died out? Whatever...).
I read my email using my text editor, the one I have been using
for programming ever since I wrote its first version some time around
1995-6. So I am very used to it, skipping from message to message is
just one key (alt-s, ok, two keys) searching the delimiter between the
messages; and since the first line is return-path: and spammers use that
for their purposes so it takes me a fraction of a second to detect a
spam and skip to the next.
> My approach has been to let an agent sort through the feed using
> criteria that it "notices" me using IMPLICITLY.  E.g., if I've
> "learned" to not open certain types of posts -- or to regret opening
> them /ex post factum/ -- let the agent *notice* that I've opted
> not to open the post (because my client didn't send a request for
> the message BODY to the NNTP server/agent) and ignore them *for* me.
>
> If I ignore folks who quote 99% of a message and add (bottom post)
> a one line comment, let the agent ignore them.  If I ignore posts
> who talk about Trump...  or, resort to silly profanity... or...
>
> (these aren't trivial to do with existing filter tools)
>
> I don't like my phone ringing when I know it's a call that I'm NOT
> going to answer (based on some observable criteria) so why not do
> the same for USENET posts, email, etc.?

Phone spammers are not very active here, almost non-existent.
However I do switch the phone to silent mode while asleep (and
unplug the landline phone, a Chinese lady keeps on calling wanting
to sell me parts, around 10-11 AM here, I sleep until much later).
Works well, sometimes not so well - like when I forgot to leave
the phone on and the courier could not deliver a laptop which was
part of a spectrometry system a DoD customer was waiting for....
(Luckily I got that the next day).

On Sunday, 7 August 2022 at 11:02:18 UTC+2, TTman wrote:
> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
> it's in tools..

WARNING !!
Never send marketing spam by AVAST

--- --https://www.safetydetectives.com/blog/avast-scandal-why-we-stopped-recommending-avast-avg/ Avast Scandal: Why We Stopped Recommending Avast & AVG

-Our readers have been messaging us and asking why we’re still ranking Avast and AVG on our website, despite them being caught up in a serious scandal. Well, after a lot of consideration and back and forth between departments, we’ve decided to finally remove them from all of our lists.

-Why? Because Avast — which also owns AVG — has been caught in a firestorm of controversy over the last several months regarding serious allegations of unethical business practices.

-The Avast Online Security browser extension was deleted from Mozilla, Chrome, and Opera marketplaces in December 2019 after claims that it was gathering a suspicious amount of user data — not only every website visited, but also user location, search history, age, gender, social media identities, and even personal shipping information. Three months later, Avast shut down a subsidiary company, Jumpshot, in the wake of investigative reports documenting the sale of personal data from around 100 million users, all gained through improper user surveillance.

-The SafetyDetectives team has carefully considered our decision to scrub Avast from our website over the next several weeks. At the end of the day, any company that faces such severe allegations has lost our faith and cannot receive our seal of approval.
Here’s How Avast Allegedly Spied on Its Users for the Last 7 Years

-Wladimir Palant — the founder of Adblock Plus — was the first person to sound the alarm about Avast’s predatory practices. In October 2019, he posted the incriminating information to his blog with a detailed explanation of how he claims Avast was able to “transmit data that allows reconstructing your entire web browsing history and much of your browsing behavior.”

-Essentially, Avast and AVG’s Online Security extensions were recording their users’ every click — documenting which websites were visited, when, and from where. While Avast claimed that data collection was a necessary part of the Online Security plugin, browser extensions from competing brands seemed to work fine without collecting and retaining such a large amount of personal information.

Then came the disclosure that this data was being sold to big corporate clients like Home Depot, Google, and Pepsi, through an Avast subsidiary called Jumpshot.
Avast Subsidiary Sold User Data For Millions of Dollars in Profit

In 2013, Avast acquired Jumpshot, a company that aggregated “anonymous” user data and sold that data to online businesses. Jumpshot’s public information was very vague, but they claimed to have obtained “clickstream data from 100 million online shoppers and 40 million app users”. The source of Jumpshot’s user data was the spyware embedded in Avast and AVG’s Online Security Browser extensions.. Palant was a driving force behind this revelation, but the nail in Jumpshot’s coffin was this article by VICE Motherboard, published in early 2020. It lists out the corporations that purchased data from Jumpshot along with whistleblower testimony and leaked internal documents from Avast and Jumpshot. Jumpshot claimed that no “Personal Identifying Information” was included in the data they sold, but many experts were not convinced.

According to the investigation, Jumpshot’s data contained every click performed by Avast Online Security users along with time stamps (accurate to the millisecond), country, city, and zip code information from users’ IP addresses. The algorithm which was designed to censor specific data like email addresses and social media profiles was exposed by Palant to be seriously malfunctioning — whole shipment details from mail carriers, including names and home addresses, were included in data packets sold by Jumpshot.
US Senators and Investigative Journalists Held Avast Accountable

-Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a well-known proponent of cybersecurity, net neutrality, and digital privacy, called out Avast publicly in December 2019, stating on Twitter that, “Americans expect cybersecurity and privacy software to protect their data, not sell it to marketers. I’m looking into this troubling report about Avast and its failure to protect consumers’ data.”

-Then, after being removed from the Chrome, Mozilla, and Opera web stores, Avast had the opportunity to abandon their privacy violating ways and start to act like a respectable cybersecurity company. They changed the privacy settings of the Online Security browser extension, which was returned to web stores at the end of December. However, as the VICE Motherboard exposé revealed, they simply moved their data collection to the main antivirus suite, embedding a data collection “opt-in” question during the installation process.

With the publication of the VICE Motherboard article, and in the face of unanimous public disapproval, Avast finally shut down Jumpshot completely in February 2020. But for SafetyDetectives, and many others in the cybersecurity world, it was too little, too late. 7 years of secretly profiting off of user data makes this one of the largest ethical violations in antivirus software history.
Why Ethical Violations by Antivirus Companies Are Especially Serious

Antivirus software is some of the most invasive software around. We give our antivirus software an unprecedented amount of access to our system — sensitive files, browsing history, financial information, and personal networks are all visible to our antivirus. We sign privacy policies and user agreements with the assumption that there isn’t deceptive language buried in all the legalese. But by violating their customer’s privacy in this way, Avast has corroded the relationship between users and antivirus products around the world. There are enough threats from hackers and invasive governments to worry about — antivirus providers should not be another threat to user security.

Jumpshot has been officially shut down, and Avast Online Security is back on Chrome and Mozilla web stores, with tighter privacy protections. But the fact remains that Avast was unethically profiting off of their users’ data for 7 years, and the only thing that stopped them was the citizen reportage of Wladimir Palant and the investigative journalists at VICE Motherboard. In our opinion, if independent professionals hadn’t rigorously documented these serious violations and notified the public, then Avast would still be running this scam. It’s even arguable that Avast only really considered changing their practices after a US Senator stepped up to confront them.
User Feedback Inspired Us to Remove Avast from SafetyDetectives

Here at SafetyDetectives, we’ve had other issues with Avast over the years — following a negative review, they actually pulled their advertising from our website. Still, we have always endeavored to bring you the best cybersecurity products on the internet, regardless of our business relationships with the companies that keep our site profitable. That’s why we continued to include Avast and AVG on our lists — we even kept them as our number 1 pick for the best antivirus for mobile devices:

Why Ethical Violations by Antivirus Companies Are Especially Serious

However, amid such glaring violations of user privacy which have been happening over the last 7 years, we can no longer continue to promote Avast or any of their subsidiaries (like AVG) on our site.

We’ve been considering a move like this for a long time. Even though a lot of top review sites continue promoting — and profiting from — Avast, we’ve been steadily moving them off of our lists for a while. The ultimate motivation for us was all of the feedback we received from our readers with messages like this: “After the data selling incident from AVAST, this software shouldn’t get any positive review or recommendation.”

We completely agree. These kinds of violations of privacy should be disturbing to anybody who believes in basic human rights. This is why it’s so important for computer users to stay on top of these issues and protect their computers with trustworthy antivirus software.

It isn’t always the easy or popular thing to do, but standing up to huge companies when they violate our rights is important. SafetyDetectives was founded with the intention of providing people around the globe with the tools to keep their data safe in the digital age — safe from hackers, unethical governments, and even predatory cybersecurity companies like Avast who have shown the world how little they care about their users.

On 8/7/2022 1:59 PM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> On 8/7/2022 18:59, Don Y wrote:
>> On 8/7/2022 3:04 AM, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>>> it's in tools..
>>>
>>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read. >
>> The problem with an unfiltered feed is that you have to keep track
>> of who you want to read/ignore.
>>
>> The problem with filters is you need to manually (in so much as you
>> have to select the pertinent criteria) create/maintain them.
>
> That is easier to do with this newsgroup. Try coping with my email
> input :). Lately only hundreds of spam messages per day, used to be
> thousands (spammers got tired? Some died out? Whatever...).

Yikes! I've got my email spam down to *zero*. But, I am very
aggressive in controlling that means of contact; I don't give
out an email address unless I *want* contact from that individual
or organization. And, "personalize" each address so I can see
if it's been "passed on", leaked, etc. This helps me weed out
groups that aren't as protective of my contact info as I'd like.

It also lets me notify folks when *they're* accounts have been hacked
(because I know the source of the "leak").

[I recently had a scammer masquerade as a legitimate contact
but my email "agent" noticed discrepancies in the headers that
I'd typically not bother checking and flagged it as bogus.
So, I phoned the party in question to inform htem that they'd likely
been hacked. "Yeah, I know. My ex-wife fell for it to the tune
of $400..."]

> I read my email using my text editor, the one I have been using
> for programming ever since I wrote its first version some time around
> 1995-6. So I am very used to it, skipping from message to message is
> just one key (alt-s, ok, two keys) searching the delimiter between the
> messages; and since the first line is return-path: and spammers use that
> for their purposes so it takes me a fraction of a second to detect a
> spam and skip to the next.

I parse the headers (and content) and use that to drive the "selection
algorithm". I don't filter things *out* but, rather, gate things *in*.
So, a scammer can't just keep creating new From: headers to bypass
any "blacklisting".

>> My approach has been to let an agent sort through the feed using
>> criteria that it "notices" me using IMPLICITLY. E.g., if I've
>> "learned" to not open certain types of posts -- or to regret opening
>> them /ex post factum/ -- let the agent *notice* that I've opted
>> not to open the post (because my client didn't send a request for
>> the message BODY to the NNTP server/agent) and ignore them *for* me.
>>
>> If I ignore folks who quote 99% of a message and add (bottom post)
>> a one line comment, let the agent ignore them. If I ignore posts
>> who talk about Trump... or, resort to silly profanity... or...
>>
>> (these aren't trivial to do with existing filter tools)
>>
>> I don't like my phone ringing when I know it's a call that I'm NOT
>> going to answer (based on some observable criteria) so why not do
>> the same for USENET posts, email, etc.?
>
> Phone spammers are not very active here, almost non-existent.

When I first deployed my "telephone attendant" (agent), I watched the
logs of how individual calls were handled (dropped, routed to /dev/null
voicemail, routed to real voicemail, etc.).

Lots of contacts from folks telling me my microsoft license was *expired*.
Or, to renew (!) the warranty on my car (yet they don't know what make/model?).
Or, for debt relief (we have *no* debt). Or, to verify my ______ account.
Or...

Also found several messages from different phone numbers with the same
voice print (my attendant tries to identify the caller in case it doesn't
recognize the number originating the call). Robots are easy to identify
cuz they never get colds, laryngitis, etc. :>

I've found that the most effective filter criteria is: do they use one
of our names in their message. Otherwise, its not specific to us and
likely spam.

I've watched folks with cell phones and see them effectively tethered to their
phones, carrying them around the house with them (WTF? is that a convenience
or an obligation??!). Or, letting everything go to voice mail and then having
to periodically "make an effort" to sort through their messages. Or, sorting
through email transcripts of incoming messages.

Isn't The Phone supposed to be a convenience function?!

Going forward, I see this as a valuable tool in avoiding exploitation
(scammers) from the folks who try to trick you into some action that
isn't warranted ("Your grandson is being held on an old warrant. Please
send us $X for her bail" -- yeah, there are all sorts of scammers
out there!)

> However I do switch the phone to silent mode while asleep (and
> unplug the landline phone, a Chinese lady keeps on calling wanting
> to sell me parts, around 10-11 AM here, I sleep until much later).
> Works well, sometimes not so well - like when I forgot to leave
> the phone on and the courier could not deliver a laptop which was
> part of a spectrometry system a DoD customer was waiting for....
> (Luckily I got that the next day).

When I lived alone, I quickly tired of the phone and dropped my
business line. Folks would call when it was convenient for *them*
which was often NOT convenient for me (as my sleep-wake cycle is
highly variable).

And, playing phone tag is just as bad.

So, I coerced (forced!) folks to adopt email as their sole means
of contact. In addition to letting each party address the communication
at a time appropriate for their *own* needs, it has the added benefit of
documenting the conversation. No more relying on what you THINK was
agreed upon!

On 8/8/22 00:00, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>> it's in tools..
>>>
>>
>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read.
>
> There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
> his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
> follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.
>
> And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a
> stranger will ask a reasonable question.

I have two filters: folk like your first group, who never say anything
worthwhile or generate worthwhile followup - I hide those subthreads.

The other group is folk whose posts are only worth reading if someone
else responds. Those get marked as "already read" but I can still see
them if they produce interesting followup.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:48:04 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_spam@please.net>
wrote:

>On 8/8/22 00:00, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>>> it's in tools..
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read.
>>
>> There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
>> his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
>> follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.
>>
>> And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a
>> stranger will ask a reasonable question.
>
>I have two filters: folk like your first group, who never say anything
>worthwhile or generate worthwhile followup - I hide those subthreads.
>
>The other group is folk whose posts are only worth reading if someone
>else responds. Those get marked as "already read" but I can still see
>them if they produce interesting followup.

But if everyone did that, nobody would ever respond.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

On 8/7/2022 6:20 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:02:09 +0100) it happened TTman
> <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote in <tcnv2i$g9ad$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>> it's in tools..
> Its easy in the newsreader I wrote, NewsFleX:
> Just activated the filter again due to too much noise
> You can filter on almost anything.
>
>
>
>> --
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> Stupid commercial you are hereby filtered!!!
> LOL
> hehe
Google how to remove the Avast add. I had mine removed years ago when
Jeff Leibermann
chastised me. Somehow it came back, probably an update. I hope I spelled
his name right,
I got chastised for misspelling his name too.
                                   Mikek

On 8/8/22 10:56, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:48:04 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_spam@please.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/8/22 00:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>>>> it's in tools..
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>>>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read.
>>>
>>> There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
>>> his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
>>> follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.
>>>
>>> And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a
>>> stranger will ask a reasonable question.
>>
>> I have two filters: folk like your first group, who never say anything
>> worthwhile or generate worthwhile followup - I hide those subthreads.
>>
>> The other group is folk whose posts are only worth reading if someone
>> else responds. Those get marked as "already read" but I can still see
>> them if they produce interesting followup.
>
> But if everyone did that, nobody would ever respond.

Not everyone finds the same people boring.
Sometimes even Sloman says something worthwhile.
I see those because someone else replies.

I also kill-thread any OP that starts out political.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:41:57 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_spam@please.net>
wrote:

>On 8/8/22 10:56, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 09:48:04 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_spam@please.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/8/22 00:00, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 13:04:13 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/7/2022 12:02, TTman wrote:
>>>>>> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>>>>> it's in tools..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes
>>>>> a glance to spot a post you might want to read.
>>>>
>>>> There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that
>>>> his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many
>>>> follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.
>>>>
>>>> And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a
>>>> stranger will ask a reasonable question.
>>>
>>> I have two filters: folk like your first group, who never say anything
>>> worthwhile or generate worthwhile followup - I hide those subthreads.
>>>
>>> The other group is folk whose posts are only worth reading if someone
>>> else responds. Those get marked as "already read" but I can still see
>>> them if they produce interesting followup.
>>
>> But if everyone did that, nobody would ever respond.
>
>Not everyone finds the same people boring.
>Sometimes even Sloman says something worthwhile.

Mindless insults are worthwhile?

>I see those because someone else replies.

But Sloman's posts are usually the start of, or embedded in, stupid
flame wars.

>
>I also kill-thread any OP that starts out political.

Pity that the creeps have driven off people who could talk serious
electronics.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 7:08:51 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:41:57 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_...@please.net>
> wrote:

> >Not everyone finds the same people boring.
> >Sometimes even Sloman says something worthwhile.
> Mindless insults are worthwhile?
> >I see those because someone else replies.
> But Sloman's posts are usually the start of, or embedded in, stupid
> flame wars.

Sadly, I perceive a couple of posters trying to start a stupid flame war.

On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 13:57:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 7:08:51 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2022 12:41:57 +1000, Clifford Heath <no_...@please.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Not everyone finds the same people boring.
>> >Sometimes even Sloman says something worthwhile.
>> Mindless insults are worthwhile?
>> >I see those because someone else replies.
>> But Sloman's posts are usually the start of, or embedded in, stupid
>> flame wars.
>
>Sadly, I perceive a couple of posters trying to start a stupid flame war.

No. Clifford and I are discussing, not arguing and insulting one
another. We mostly agree.

I rarely read and never respond to the ritual flamers. They don't know
much about electronic design anyhow.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc trk

The cork popped merrily, and Lord Peter rose to his feet.
"Bunter", he said, "I give you a toast. The triumph of Instinct over Reason"

On Sun, 07 Aug 2022 11:20:54 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:02:09 +0100) it happened TTman
><kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote in <tcnv2i$g9ad$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>>Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>it's in tools..
>
>Its easy in the newsreader I wrote, NewsFleX:
>Just activated the filter again due to too much noise
>You can filter on almost anything.
>
>

I can add a delete filter for posts from someone but I can't seem to
filter responses to those posts which may very well have his responses
in them and, of course, the reset of the stupid topic I wanted to
filter anyway.

Don't want to have to create a filter for every subject I don't care
for. Using Agent

boB

>
>>--
>>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>Stupid commercial you are hereby filtered!!!
>LOL
>hehe

boB <boB@k7iq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2022 11:20:54 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:02:09 +0100) it happened TTman
>><kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote in <tcnv2i$g9ad$1@dont-email.me>:
>>
>>>Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
>>>it's in tools..
>>
>>Its easy in the newsreader I wrote, NewsFleX:
>>Just activated the filter again due to too much noise
>>You can filter on almost anything.
>>
>>
>
> I can add a delete filter for posts from someone but I can't seem to
> filter responses to those posts which may very well have his responses
> in them and, of course, the reset of the stupid topic I wanted to
> filter anyway.
>
> Don't want to have to create a filter for every subject I don't care
> for. Using Agent

Does it support killfiling based upon the Message-ID: and References:
header?

If yes, you add a rule killfiling on the message id of the post
starting the subthread you want to remove, and any article with that
message ID in the References: header gets filtered away.

boB <boB@K7IQ.com> Wrote in message:r
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2022 11:20:54 GMT, Jan Panteltje<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:>On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:02:09 +0100) it happened TTman><kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote in <tcnv2i$g9ad$1@dont-email.me>:>>>Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group - >>it's in tools..>>Its easy in the newsreader I wrote, NewsFleX:>Just activated the filter again due to too much noise>You can filter on almost anything.>>I can add a delete filter for posts from someone but I can't seem tofilter responses to those posts which may very well have his responsesin them and, of course, the reset of the stupid topic I wanted tofilter anyway.Don't want to have to create a filter for every subject I don't carefor. Using AgentboB>>>-- >>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.>>https://www.avast.com/antivirus>>Stupid commercial you are hereby filtered!!!>LOL>hehe

The android app Newsgroups, filters the entire thread. I didn't
expect that , but it does cut down on the noise.
This is the free version.

Cheers
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 5:02:18 AM UTC-4, TTman wrote:
> Just discovered that I can in fact block/ignore a poster in this group -
> it's in tools..
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Dumber than a lump of coal...