I've just acquired a blue Bosch GBH 2 SR SDS drill, 230v. Sort of charity
auction with blind bids. It was built in 2001 but works perfectly & doesn't
seem to have had a hard life.

I'm knee deep in SDS drills & don't need it. If its any good to anybody &
they can collect from (a) the Medway Towns (b) Barnehurst, near Bexley or
(c) Fulham I don't want anything for it.

First to e-mail me off group can have it.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:26:17 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:
First to e-mail me off group
...

I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)

Incidentally giving stuff away is starting to bug me, purely because I
suspect the majority of it gets grabbed by folk who have no actual use for
it, but who bung it straight on ebay. I suppose that shouldn't irritate,
because once it's theirs they should be free to do whatever they want with
it, but it still grates somehow...

Jules wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:26:17 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:
First to e-mail me off group
...

I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)

That might be why I included my real e mail address :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:22:02 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:26:17 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:
First to e-mail me off group
...

I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)

That might be why I included my real e mail address :-)

Indeed - but what's the point of hiding your address from the spammers if
you're just going to outright give it to them in the message? Now the WD40
police will find you

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:06:27 -0500, Jules wrote:

First to e-mail me off group

I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)

But it's a POP to de-munge FFS!

Incidentally giving stuff away is starting to bug me, purely because I
suspect the majority of it gets grabbed by folk who have no actual use
for it, but who bung it straight on ebay.

Or sell at the local car boot. This is a problem for many freecycle
groups but in well managed ones such people soon stand out and get
knobbled.

I suppose that shouldn't irritate, because once it's theirs they should
be free to do whatever they want with it, but it still grates somehow...


Agreed, it's been given away to that person to use and benefit from
it's use not to be sold and proceeds ****ed up against the wall,
wafted into the air or support a couch potatoes habit.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:22:52 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:06:27 -0500, Jules wrote:

First to e-mail me off group

I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)

But it's a POP to de-munge FFS!

Well, yes... :-) Always wondered if spammers are armed to the teeth with
software which tries to de-munge 'obvious' addresses, or if they just have
people doing that task... (or if they just don't bother because it's not
worth it, in which even the most trivial of address masking is good enough)

Incidentally giving stuff away is starting to bug me, purely because I
suspect the majority of it gets grabbed by folk who have no actual use
for it, but who bung it straight on ebay.

Or sell at the local car boot. This is a problem for many freecycle
groups but in well managed ones such people soon stand out and get
knobbled.

It might be terriorial / economical, too. The Cambridge one was very good,
but my one out here in the wilds of the US is awful - people giving away
crud (if only kittens were currency!) and anything remotely useful gets
pounced on by a few thousand lurkers.

I suppose that shouldn't irritate, because once it's theirs they should
be free to do whatever they want with it, but it still grates
somehow...

Agreed, it's been given away to that person to use and benefit from it's
use not to be sold and proceeds ****ed up against the wall, wafted into
the air or support a couch potatoes habit.

Maybe someone could draw up a legally-binding contract along the lines of
"send me a photo of the item in a year's time or you owe me x quid"

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:22:02 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:26:17 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:
First to e-mail me off group
...
I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)
That might be why I included my real e mail address :-)

Indeed - but what's the point of hiding your address from the spammers if
you're just going to outright give it to them in the message? Now the WD40
police will find you

Interestingly, research suggests[1] that harvesting of email addresses
from usenet is *far* more likely to happen with addresses that appear in
the headers that those that just appear in the body text.

[1] An oldish, but interesting paper:
http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml

"For the vast majority of the spam we received due to USENET postings,
messages were sent to addresses referenced in the message header, not to
addresses referenced in the text of the message. In a very few cases
(1% of all USENET-related spam we received), messages were sent to
addresses referenced in the message text. In all cases, spam was sent to
addresses that were included in plaintext, not obscured in any way."

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:

Interestingly, research suggests[1] that harvesting of email addresses
from usenet is *far* more likely to happen with addresses that appear in
the headers that those that just appear in the body text.

Not surprising really. It's much quicker to download thousands of headers
only instead of complete messages. Having downloaded them it's a simple
matter to filter out just the "From:" lines and extract the address with a
simple regex. Scanning the entire message body would be much more time
consuming, and not even yield any results for the majority of messages.

--
Mike Clarke

Mike Clarke wrote:
John Rumm wrote:

Interestingly, research suggests[1] that harvesting of email addresses
from usenet is *far* more likely to happen with addresses that appear in
the headers that those that just appear in the body text.

Not surprising really. It's much quicker to download thousands of headers
only instead of complete messages. Having downloaded them it's a simple
matter to filter out just the "From:" lines and extract the address with a
simple regex. Scanning the entire message body would be much more time
consuming, and not even yield any results for the majority of messages.

Same logic seems to apply to web harvesting as well. Much less hassle to
get the HTML and read the source code for "mailto:" links, rather than
have to do any processing/unescaping or execution of Jscript to render
obfuscated email addresses machine readable.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/