TimH:
>I was watching that last night and I couldn't help wondering if one
>of the GIs was Dexter Fletcher out of the Crystal Maze.
Yup, was him out of Press Gang
>Who once snogged Shauna Lowery, if anyones heard of her.
Did you have to kneel down?
Dave
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
forteana-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF96440C8
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 11:33:46 -0400 (EDT)
from phobos [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:33:46 +0100 (IST)
from lugh.tuatha.org (root@lugh.tuatha.org [194.125.145.45]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6VFQl230672 for
    <jm-ilug@jmason.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:26:47 +0100
from lugh (root@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lugh.tuatha.org
    (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12641; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:24:26 +0100
from cerberus.bluetree.ie (cerberus.bluetree.ie [62.17.24.129])
    by lugh.tuatha.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12617 for
    <ilug@linux.ie>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:24:19 +0100
(from mail@localhost) by cerberus.bluetree.ie (8.11.6/8.11.6) id
    g6VFOHG25284 for ilug@linux.ie; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:24:17 +0100
Checked on cerberus.bluetree.ie at Wed Jul 31 16:24:11
    IST 2002
from atlas.bluetree.ie (IDENT:root@atlas.bluetree.ie
    [192.168.3.2]) by cerberus.bluetree.ie (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id
    g6VFOB825204 for <ilug@linux.ie>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:24:11 +0100
from arafel (arafel.bluetree.ie [192.168.3.42]) by
    atlas.bluetree.ie (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g6VFOBd15107 for
    <ilug@linux.ie>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:24:11 +0100
From ilug-admin@linux.ie  Wed Jul 31 16:33:48 2002

On Friday 06 September 2002 20:48, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>     Greg> In case it wasn't obvious, I'm a strong proponent of
> filtering Greg> junk mail as early as possible, ie. right after the
> SMTP DATA Greg> command has been completed.  Filtering spam at the
> MUA just seems Greg> stupid to me -- by the time it gets to me MUA,
> the spammer has Greg> already stolen my bandwidth.
>
> The two problems I see with filtering that early are:
>
>     1. Everyone receiving email via that server will contribute ham
> to the stew, making the Bayesian classification less effective.
>
>     2. Given that there will be some false positives, you absolutely
> have to put the mail somewhere.  You can't simply delete it.  (I also
> don't like the TMDA-ish business of replying with a msg that says,
> "here's what you do to really get your message to me."  That puts an
> extra burden on my correspondents.)  As an individual, I would prefer
> you put spammish messages somewhere where I can review them, not an
> anonymous sysadmin who I might not trust with my personal email
> (nothing against you Greg ;-).
>
> I personally prefer to manage this stuff at the user agent level.
> Bandwidth is a heck of a lot cheaper than my time.
>
I see no reason why both approaches could and should not be used.
MTA level filtering would just need to use a different corpus, one that
would contain illegal or otherwise commonly unapproved material for the
group of people using that MTA.   I'm sure that such an approach would
significantly reduce the mail traffic as a first step, without  giving
false positives.
MUA corpus would then be personally trained -- although I'd like the
option of 'down-loadable' corpuses and merge functionality.
Harri
PS.  Just joined the list, so pardon if my thoughts have been hashed
through before.