Where is this "(RCSD)" crap coming from?

Just to differentiate the SPAM from the GOOD. Makes it easier eh


In article ,
"Nick Knight" wrote:

When I first saw subjects with the RCSD letters in them, I didn't stop to
analyze, I simply assumed it was some type of spam. In believe I had it
kill-filed for some time, then the kill entry expired. And when it did, the
threads with these chars in them disappeared. yes!

But now they're back with avengence, and (duh!) I realize that SOMEONE is
labeling their posts with the abbreviation of this group.

The big question is WHY? Don't you KNOW you're posting in this particular
group? Doesn't everyone's newsreader TELL THEM that they are reading and
posting in this particular group? All of these questions, are of course,
rhetorical.

Wouldn't it be nice if whoever is doing this would figure out that it is
unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and interferes with various
universally helpful things like basic sorting, threading and watches by
subject. Some posts end up perpetuating the silliness, while other chop it.
Or the thread starts and runs for a long time without these obnoxious
labels, then someone adds them and we're got a mess.

I'm considering killfiling again, even knowing that I'll then miss great
information. It's a shame the shaw.ca poster that keeps wanting to talk to
himself about eBay pet peives isn't the one doing this ... I could kill two
birds with one stone, er, killfile entry.

Is there some realistic functional reason for the use of this silly acronym
in what we already KNOW is RCSD? I've not seen this done in any other
newsgroup over many, many years of participating (in many, many newsgroups).
Thank goodness.

Nick

When I first saw subjects with the RCSD letters in them, I didn't stop to
analyze, I simply assumed it was some type of spam. In believe I had it
kill-filed for some time, then the kill entry expired. And when it did, the
threads with these chars in them disappeared. yes!

But now they're back with avengence, and (duh!) I realize that SOMEONE is
labeling their posts with the abbreviation of this group.

The big question is WHY? Don't you KNOW you're posting in this particular
group? Doesn't everyone's newsreader TELL THEM that they are reading and
posting in this particular group? All of these questions, are of course,
rhetorical.

Wouldn't it be nice if whoever is doing this would figure out that it is
unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and interferes with various
universally helpful things like basic sorting, threading and watches by
subject. Some posts end up perpetuating the silliness, while other chop it.
Or the thread starts and runs for a long time without these obnoxious
labels, then someone adds them and we're got a mess.

I'm considering killfiling again, even knowing that I'll then miss great
information. It's a shame the shaw.ca poster that keeps wanting to talk to
himself about eBay pet peives isn't the one doing this ... I could kill two
birds with one stone, er, killfile entry.

Is there some realistic functional reason for the use of this silly acronym
in what we already KNOW is RCSD? I've not seen this done in any other
newsgroup over many, many years of participating (in many, many newsgroups).
Thank goodness.

Nick

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:54:11 -0400, maz wrote:

Just to differentiate the SPAM from the GOOD. Makes it easier eh

Haven't seen any spam here for many a month.



--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ http://www.pherber.com/

Nick,
About 4 or 6 months ago this rec.collecting.stamps.discuss (=RCSD) newsgroup
began to get flooded with spam. People started manually adding this
abbreviation to distinguish *good* mail. So it is the opposite of spam.

The spam has died down now, just the occasional jerk like buycheapsneakers a
couple of days ago. Looks like the filters are working (again).

Bye
Jan


"Nick Knight" schreef in bericht
...
When I first saw subjects with the RCSD letters in them, I didn't stop to
analyze, I simply assumed it was some type of spam. In believe I had it
kill-filed for some time, then the kill entry expired. And when it did,
the
threads with these chars in them disappeared. yes!

But now they're back with avengence, and (duh!) I realize that SOMEONE is
labeling their posts with the abbreviation of this group.

The big question is WHY? Don't you KNOW you're posting in this particular
group? Doesn't everyone's newsreader TELL THEM that they are reading and
posting in this particular group? All of these questions, are of course,
rhetorical.

Wouldn't it be nice if whoever is doing this would figure out that it is
unnecessary, a complete waste of time, and interferes with various
universally helpful things like basic sorting, threading and watches by
subject. Some posts end up perpetuating the silliness, while other chop
it.
Or the thread starts and runs for a long time without these obnoxious
labels, then someone adds them and we're got a mess.

I'm considering killfiling again, even knowing that I'll then miss great
information. It's a shame the shaw.ca poster that keeps wanting to talk
to
himself about eBay pet peives isn't the one doing this ... I could kill
two
birds with one stone, er, killfile entry.

Is there some realistic functional reason for the use of this silly
acronym
in what we already KNOW is RCSD? I've not seen this done in any other
newsgroup over many, many years of participating (in many, many
newsgroups).
Thank goodness.

Nick

On Mar 22, 10:28 am, "Jan Doggen"
wrote:
Nick,
About 4 or 6 months ago this rec.collecting.stamps.discuss (=RCSD) newsgroup
began to get flooded with spam. People started manually adding this
abbreviation to distinguish *good* mail. So it is the opposite of spam.

The spam has died down now, just the occasional jerk like buycheapsneakers a
couple of days ago. Looks like the filters are working (again).

Bye
Jan


The (RCSD), in the subject line, also allows quick identification of
spammers
who cross-post to multiple groups, including our resident troll..

Blair

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:55:41 -0500, "Nick Knight"
wrote:

I'm considering killfiling again, even knowing that I'll then miss great
information. It's a shame the shaw.ca poster that keeps wanting to talk to
himself about eBay pet peives isn't the one doing this ... I could kill two
birds with one stone, er, killfile entry.

If you kill him off, he'll morph again. It's a constant cat & mouse
show.

If you kill off the newsgroup, why not drop it entirely?

We've had far worse than the Edmonton Cereal Killer here, that's for
sure - and have had far better than several other newsgroups combined.

YMMV...

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:01:27 -0800, Sir F. A. Rien
wrote:

Paul Herber found these unused
words:

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:54:11 -0400, maz wrote:

Just to differentiate the SPAM from the GOOD. Makes it easier eh

Haven't seen any spam here for many a month.

Perhaps your ISP is filtering - but on Giganews, just yesterday (Friday)
there were 4 'Nike" SPAMs. Two others from clueless sales offers.

OR - he could be receiving only those with RCSD. :^)

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
snip

The big question is WHY? Don't you KNOW you're posting in this particular
group? Doesn't everyone's newsreader TELL THEM that they are reading and
posting in this particular group? All of these questions, are of course,
rhetorical.

The big question is an obvious one and, of course, these questions aren't
rhetorical. Here is the answer: the participants had their reasons, and the
answers already posted explained them.

If someone doesn't know something, the obvious way is to ask, calmly, and
without labeling the thing from the very beginning. The usage of "crap" or
of similar terms (see the subject line) for unknown things isn't necessarily
a good idea, as proved by this thread.

--
Victor Manta

In , on 03/22/2008
at 11:03 PM, "Victor Manta" said:

The big question is an obvious one and, of course, these questions aren't
rhetorical. Here is the answer: the participants had their reasons, and the
answers already posted explained them.

Yes, I see a home-grown solution to a temporary problem. One that could
have certainly been fixed in other ways. But this was "cheap" and easy, and
apparently worked. However, now it just looks stupid, and is actually
detrimental. With no obvious/current junk flooding in, my
questions/comments remain pertinent and timely. And the answers rhetorical.

If someone doesn't know something, the obvious way is to ask, calmly, and
without labeling the thing from the very beginning. The usage of "crap" or
of similar terms (see the subject line) for unknown things isn't
necessarily a good idea, as proved by this thread.

I didn't know something, and I asked exactly how I wanted to ask, and
exactly how I would ask again, if need be. While I've now heard a fairly
reasonable explanation of why it was once done, it apparently doesn't need
to be done "now". Which, IMO, makes it crap. As it is still ugly and
intefering with mechanisms important to those not in on the the little
secret.

Still looks like crap to me, thank you very much.

Nick

Some like wallowing in crap.

Tony

"Nick Knight" wrote in message
...
In , on 03/22/2008
at 11:03 PM, "Victor Manta" said:

The big question is an obvious one and, of course, these questions aren't
rhetorical. Here is the answer: the participants had their reasons, and
the
answers already posted explained them.

Yes, I see a home-grown solution to a temporary problem. One that could
have certainly been fixed in other ways. But this was "cheap" and easy,
and
apparently worked. However, now it just looks stupid, and is actually
detrimental. With no obvious/current junk flooding in, my
questions/comments remain pertinent and timely. And the answers
rhetorical.

If someone doesn't know something, the obvious way is to ask, calmly, and
without labeling the thing from the very beginning. The usage of "crap" or
of similar terms (see the subject line) for unknown things isn't
necessarily a good idea, as proved by this thread.

I didn't know something, and I asked exactly how I wanted to ask, and
exactly how I would ask again, if need be. While I've now heard a fairly
reasonable explanation of why it was once done, it apparently doesn't need
to be done "now". Which, IMO, makes it crap. As it is still ugly and
intefering with mechanisms important to those not in on the the little
secret.

Still looks like crap to me, thank you very much.

Nick



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com