 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006Completely OT: strange spam
Sorry to be so OT, but, as others have said in comparable circs, I trust people here for sensible answers. I make this email address public, so it gets the spam. I've just received a spam mail not only dated 26 January 2000, but sorted appropriately to the bottom of the inbox instead of by the date and time of receipt. Is it only Yahoo which does this? It doesn't strike me as a good idea.  SignatureMike. >Sorry to be so OT, but, as others have said in comparable circs, I >trust people here for sensible answers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Is it only Yahoo which does this? It doesn't strike me as a good idea. My guess is that the sender's computer clock is not correctly set or the battery is about to go. The message only thinks it was sent on 26 January 2000. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > My guess is that the sender's computer clock is not correctly set or > the battery is about to go. The message only thinks it was sent on > 26 January 2000. The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a rule). Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego > The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom of > the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a rule). With a dozen web sites, I get a lot of spam, and I think the theory above is likely, in that I get a fair number of such "down to the bottom" backdated spams. Most people, I think, routinely run down their incoming email from the top looking for obvious junk to delete. By sneaking in at the bottom, the spam has a chance to make it through that first cull, after which it may look like an overlooked earlier real message. Just a guess . . . . >> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that first cull, after which it may look like an overlooked earlier > real message. Just a guess . . . . My back-dated spam (or any other type of email) lands at the top of my list of incoming, whether we're talking about Yahoo or OE. That's apparently because I have set my email option that way. The same goes for my husband's email. And the same goes for my email OE again) when I was working. But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the bottom? How many at the top? SignatureMaria In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote: >But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the >bottom? How many at the top? My mail is sorted in ascending order of time received. That's new mail at the bottom, regardless of when sent or apparently sent. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England [...] > My back-dated spam (or any other type of email) lands at the top of my > list of incoming . . . . Sure, and doubtless others have it set that way, too. But the principle remains: falsely dated spam ends up at the far end of the list from where real new mail goes, and thus (in many cases) from where first-look culling takes place. >>> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >>> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the > bottom? How many at the top? My new mail, on my home email set-up, is at the bottom. Unfortunately on the system at work I have to read it from the top, which I find very disorienting. I also read newsgroups from the bottom up. I often read newspapers and magazines from the back (but not books). I wonder what this says about my personality. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: >I often read newspapers and magazines from the back (but not books). Are you left-handed by any chance? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: > >>I often read newspapers and magazines from the back (but not books). > > Are you left-handed by any chance? Nope. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: > > > >>I often read newspapers and magazines from the back (but not books). Same here. > > Are you left-handed by any chance? > > Nope. Me neither. Could it be a legacy of Hebrew school? SignatureJerry Friedman >>>In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Me neither. Could it be a legacy of Hebrew school? Ah, perhaps you are another of my long-lost brothers? How are you on the rocket question? Reading back to front might be explained thus but I'm not sure about the top/bottom bit. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> > In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Me neither. Could it be a legacy of Hebrew school? I didn't go to Hebrew school but read as many papers and magazines from the back as from the front. The Guardian from the front (starting with sudoku), the supplement G2 from the back (starting with kakuro) for a start. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>>> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >>>> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > My new mail, on my home email set-up, is at the bottom. No option to order the mail by whichever criterion you prefer and in either order? You must miss Outlook Express. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>>The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >>>>>of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > No option to order the mail by whichever criterion you prefer and in either > order? You must miss Outlook Express. Oh, I can do it any way I like but this is how I *like* it. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > I often read >newspapers and magazines from the back (but not books). I wonder what >this says about my personality. Me too. I was amused to notice some Chinese friends reading books from the back (left to right). David >> But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at >> the bottom? How many at the top? > > My new mail, on my home email set-up, is at the bottom. Unfortunately > on the system at work I have to read it from the top, which I find > very disorienting. My new mail is at the bottom, but some of the quirks of Thunderbird make me suspect that it has only been tested with the opposite sorting order. For a while at work I had to use Gropewise, a truly malodorous program, and it insisted on putting new mail at the beginning of the list. One thing I discovered was that people whose mail was sorted that way were the ones most likely to top-post. > I often read newspapers and magazines from the back (but not books). > I wonder what this says about my personality. In my childhood I always did that, but there was an obvious reason for it: in the newspaper we received, the comic strips were closer to the back. Now I don't do it as often, but I suppose the day will come when I start with the obituaries. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. Maria <marian.c-b@sbcglobal.net> had it: > >> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom > >> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the > bottom? How many at the top? I use Outlook (not Express) for mail both at home and at work; I always set it to show new mail at the bottom. SignatureDavid ===== The Maria entity posted thusly: >>> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >>> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the >bottom? How many at the top? I use Pegasus Mail, and have it set to put unread mail at the top, so it doesn't matter when it arrived or when it was apparently sent. > >> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom > >> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a > >> rule). > > But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the > bottom? How many at the top? New mail at top. But occasionally a spammer shows up at the bottom. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >>> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >>> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the > bottom? How many at the top? Most recent (receive date) at the top, for me. You may be correct about OE sorting by sender's date, but sometimes an email may have been held up in traffic, so to speak. I have had a few that come in today dated two weeks earlier, and I have to go through old email to find the unread ones. But that annoyance is rare. >>> The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom >>> of the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > But your point is interesting -- how many AUEers have new mail at the > bottom? How many at the top? I don't keep my Webmail in the two systems I use in their Inboxes. Mail I want to keep goes into the appropriate folders, and the rest gets deleted daily. I pay no attention to the dates that are displayed, as I select messages for deletion based on the From and Subject lines. My usual method is to mark all messages for deletion (done with a single click) and then unmarking those, if any, I want to keep. The e-mail that comes to my primary address is handled by OE, and I check it almost constantly, deleting junk mail immediately. The rest goes into folders, as appropriate. Right now the junk mail volume there, even though I use the address unmunged in this group, is extremely low -- one or two spam messages per day. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/ > ... how many AUEers have new mail at the bottom? How many at the top? There were eight people who gave an answer. One of them gave two answers -- one for work and one for home. I've counted both. Final: Five have new mail at the bottom, and four have it at the top. No real conclusion there: Almost six of one, and 2/3 of a half-dozen of the other. SignatureMaria tinwhistler wrote, in <1163637152.504528.37760@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> on 15 Nov 2006 16:32:32 -0800: > > My guess is that the sender's computer clock is not correctly set or > > the battery is about to go. The message only thinks it was sent on > > 26 January 2000. > > The clock setting may be an intentional error -- spam at the bottom of > the inbox doesn't get deleted as quickly as other spam (as a rule). That's my belief. The other sort of spam date that goes in the other direction is: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2038 03:14:07 GMT after which the UNIX world goes into melt-down. SignatureNick Spalding >I make this email address public, so it gets the spam. I've just >received a spam mail not only dated 26 January 2000, but sorted >appropriately to the bottom of the inbox instead of by the date and >time of receipt. >Is it only Yahoo which does this? It doesn't strike me as a good idea. It is one of many possible choices the implementor of a mail client may make, all reasonable. (There are of course unreasonable choices as well, but they don't last long.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > Sorry to be so OT, but, as others have said in comparable circs, I > trust people here for sensible answers. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Is it only Yahoo which does this? It doesn't strike me as a good > idea. Spammers make up their headings, so nothing in the header lines (except for many of the Received lines, and sometimes the Return-Path line) can be trusted to have anything to do with reality. The date can be anything the spammer wants it to be. Most e-mail software (at the receiving end) has options to sort in different ways. Look around your option settings, and you might find that you can sort by order received rather than by sender's date. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >> Sorry to be so OT, but, as others have said in comparable circs, I >> trust people here for sensible answers. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > different ways. Look around your option settings, and you might find > that you can sort by order received rather than by sender's date. However, I think (with OE, at least) the "Order Received" may be based on the sender's Send Date. SignatureMaria > > Sorry to be so OT, but, as others have said in comparable circs, I > > trust people here for sensible answers. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > different ways. Look around your option settings, and you might find > that you can sort by order received rather than by sender's date. No, that's what interested me: Yahoo offers only ascending or descending order of receipt. But it's clearly lying, as it isn't really doing that. As I say, the way they implement it seems like a bad idea: there is no reason to believe that every sender has a correctly set clock and calendar, and their relying on the sender could mean a recipient missed a message that actually mattered. I haven't met the problem with other email addresses. SignatureMike. Mike Lyle (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <1163634612.728945.135000@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: > Sorry to be so OT, but, as others have said in comparable circs, I > trust people here for sensible answers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is it only Yahoo which does this? It doesn't strike me as a good idea. By coincidence you are reviving an email address which was active in early 2000 but has been dormant for some while since. These spams have been "out there" ever since. SignatureTerms and conditions apply. Batteries not included. Subject to status. Financial commitment required. Always read the label. Keep out of children. Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > Mike Lyle (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message > <1163634612.728945.135000@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 2000 but has been dormant for some while since. These spams have been "out > there" ever since. No, the address has been in constant use for years, and I chose it to be moderately unlikely to be assembled at random while still remaining recognisable and usable. (Interestingly, I found that part of British Airways' automated system couldn't read it: they quoted it back at me on line without underscores and in all caps.) SignatureMike. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.