TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses

Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses

TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@telecom-digest.org)
Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:49:02 EDT

Ordinarily either Lisa Minter or myself get in here and flush the spam
queue a few times daily. Then we go through the 'regular' file of
'good' incoming mail and sort through it, since about 80-90 percent of
the stuff in the 'good' mail file is also spam which managed to not
trip the Spam Assassin rules. Then we move the 'good' stuff into a
protected area where it is stored until the next issue comes out. But
from the last issue of the Digest on Wednesday through the present
time, neither of us came in to do the usual flush, consequently there
were several hundred spams in the so- called 'good' file today. And in
the middle of them, here and there, the legitimate emails. Unfortunatly,
the good stuff got flushed with the volumes of spam today by accident.
What you see in this issue is _all we have left_ of the good stuff.
If you wrote to the Digest anytime since Wednesday night; you got an
autoack and _do not_ see your email in this issue, then please
resubmit it.

There *has to be* a better way of sorting out the spam. I have the
trigger set now at 2 (according to Spam Assassin, 5 is average for
most users), but I just do not feel I can go any lower than 2; there
is too much stuff otherwise hitting the spam bucket; I use the very
old 'mail' from 1993 with Unix here; I wish there were someway to
see entire screens full of stuff and be able to dismiss it with a
single keystroke instead of the 3-4 keystrokes needed at present.
Anyway, if your message from (probably during the day) Thursday is
not shown here, then sorry, I don't have it. Resubmit it please.

Patrick Townson

Path: telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: 14 Apr 2005 14:25:46 -0700
From: Lisa Minter <lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Comcast Sued for Disclosing Customer Information
Message-ID: <telecom24.163.2@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 24, Issue 163, Message 2 of 9
Lines: 41

Comcast Corp. the top U.S. cable television network operator, is
being sued by a Seattle-area woman for disclosing her name and contact
information, court records showed on Thursday.

In a lawsuit filed in King County, Washington, Dawnell Leadbetter said
that she was contacted by a debt collection agency in January and told
to pay a $4,500 for downloading copyright-protected music or face a
lawsuit for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Leadbetter, a mother of two teenage children, was a customer of
Comcast's high-speed Internet access service. The company, Settlement
Support Center LLC, based in Washington state, was using information
that the Recording Industry of Association of America had obtained in
a Philadelphia lawsuit over the illegal sharing of digital music
files, said Lory Lybeck, the lawyer representing Leadbetter.

But no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its
customers, or notified his client that her information had been given
to an outside party, Lybeck said. "Comcast should respect the
rights of privacy who pay them monthly bills," Lybeck said.
Representatives from Comcast said they could not immediately comment
on the lawsuit.

The RIAA has filed thousands of lawsuits since September and settled
several hundred for about $3,000 each.

Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If, in fact, Comcast was legally subpoened
for the information, then they _had_ to give it out, or face penalties
themselves. I assume that is the case, but you'd think they would have
told their customer about it. When the attorney stated that 'no court
had authorized the release', I suppose that's what the subpoena did:
the subpoena acts as the limited authorization does it not? PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Lisa Minter: "U.N. Expert Says Firms Should Do More Vs Child Porn"
Go to Previous message: Linc Madison: "Last Laugh! When Marketing Surveys Get Off-Track"
Next in thread: Supak Lailert: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: Supak Lailert: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: Tom Lynn: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: shlichter1@aol.com: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: Scott Dorsey: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be reply: Tony P.: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page