Is anyone else getting a TON of Google/YouTube spam/phishing emails? Two of my alias email accounts are getting barraged with them. Like 3-4 a day. (OK, barraged might be over-hyping it, but 3-4/day x 2 email accounts that spill into one Inbox is 6-8 at a glance.)
Zoe: Don't think it's a good spot, sir. She still has the advantage over us. Mal: Everyone always does. That's what makes us special.
'Serenity'
Buffistechnology 3: "Press Some Buttons, See What Happens."
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
omnis_audis - Oct 17, 2012 11:46:12 am PDT #21235 of 25501
omnis, pursue. That's an order from a shy woman who can use M-16. - Shir
Typo Boy - Oct 17, 2012 12:25:12 pm PDT #21236 of 25501
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
I always mark spam as spam and google does a good job of learning moving spam into spam box with false positives and false negatives being rare.
Google has been slower for me than usual though.
§ ita § - Oct 17, 2012 12:56:05 pm PDT #21237 of 25501
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
OS X mail doesn't have any heuristics, right? No Bayesian shit happening in the background?
Because many of my primary email accounts don't come through gmail. My domain host is decent at cutting out much of the spam, but it's tiresome how often I still see the exact same shit come through. At least with Eudora I felt I was accomplishing something by junking.
Rob - Oct 17, 2012 1:12:49 pm PDT #21238 of 25501
§ ita § - Oct 17, 2012 1:15:24 pm PDT #21239 of 25501
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I assume there's something in the algorithm that makes tossing duplicates of things you've marked as spam, but the visible body text is often repeated (AFAICT) multiple times over a month. It's tiring...
Rob - Oct 17, 2012 1:23:02 pm PDT #21240 of 25501
I end up paying Google for Postini. I haven't found anything else works as well.
Typo Boy - Oct 17, 2012 1:25:31 pm PDT #21241 of 25501
Calli: My people have a saying. A man who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.Avon: Life expectancy among your people must be extremely short.
For most purposes Google has great spam filters. Though they failed for ita !'s photo sight cause she gets legit mail with words like "naked" and "hot" in them. I wonder if Google is missing a niche market by not selling a tweaked version of their spam filter as a service to people who run sites where you might need need exceptions to the standard filter.
Liese S. - Oct 17, 2012 6:56:17 pm PDT #21242 of 25501
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
Yeah, I might need to pay for Postini.
I'm also getting a ton of spam to my donations address. Whereas the dirty address that I use deliberately to fill in web forms? Totally clean. IDEK.
tommyrot - Oct 18, 2012 10:21:54 am PDT #21243 of 25501
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
So Douglas Crockford, author of JavaScript: The Good Parts and creator of the JSLint site says "Do not use String as a constructor."
IOW, don't do this:
strObj = new String("puppies!");
(strObj becomes a string object in this example.)
But AFAIK this is not a universal opinion. I'm still trying to understand why Crockford says this.
Any thoughts/opinions?
eta:
He says:
Do not use new Number, new String, or new Boolean. These forms produce unnecessary object wrappers. Just use simple literals instead.
Oh. But sometimes I need a string object.
Rob - Oct 18, 2012 10:35:24 am PDT #21244 of 25501
I agree with Crockford. The JavaScript virtual machine is responsible for making string literals behave exactly like a string object constructed with new. I can't think of any case where you would need to use new String(). Where do you find you need to?