block/ignore

That's possible in virtually all NNTP clients.

But, most limit the filters to just header content; you can't filter based on *body* content. You can do much more if you suck up the feed to a server and do the filtering "server-side" (it also lets you benefit from that filtering even if you use a different client/host)

And, you have to be a bit more creative to deal with the nym-shifters -- but that's not really hard.

[filtering based on cross-posting is a good first cut]

There is not such a huge flood of posts to need filtering, it just takes a glance to spot a post you might want to read.

On a sunny day (Sun, 7 Aug 2022 10:02:09 +0100) it happened TTman snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in <tcnv2i$g9ad$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Its easy in the newsreader I wrote, NewsFleX: Just activated the filter again due to too much noise You can filter on almost anything.

Stupid commercial you are hereby filtered!!! LOL hehe

There a few posters here that, when you see their name, you know that his post and all follow-ups are garbage. Usually many, many follow-ups. The pattern is distinct.

And a very few people are always worth reading. Occasionally a stranger will ask a reasonable question.

Exactly, this is how I see it, too. I typically monitor the group with the browser via google groups and use the newsreader only if I want to post.

Yes, and others are very intermittent posters providing tons of pointless opinion and drivel, the occasionally posting something worth reading.

The problem with an unfiltered feed is that you have to keep track of who you want to read/ignore.

The problem with filters is you need to manually (in so much as you have to select the pertinent criteria) create/maintain them.

My approach has been to let an agent sort through the feed using criteria that it "notices" me using IMPLICITLY. E.g., if I've "learned" to not open certain types of posts -- or to regret opening them /ex post factum/ -- let the agent *notice* that I've opted not to open the post (because my client didn't send a request for the message BODY to the NNTP server/agent) and ignore them *for* me.

If I ignore folks who quote 99% of a message and add (bottom post) a one line comment, let the agent ignore them. If I ignore posts who talk about Trump... or, resort to silly profanity... or...

(these aren't trivial to do with existing filter tools)

I don't like my phone ringing when I know it's a call that I'm NOT going to answer (based on some observable criteria) so why not do the same for USENET posts, email, etc.?

Machines are great for remembering/enforcing behaviors/decisions!

That is easier to do with this newsgroup. Try coping with my email input :). Lately only hundreds of spam messages per day, used to be thousands (spammers got tired? Some died out? Whatever...). I read my email using my text editor, the one I have been using for programming ever since I wrote its first version some time around

1995-6. So I am very used to it, skipping from message to message is just one key (alt-s, ok, two keys) searching the delimiter between the messages; and since the first line is return-path: and spammers use that for their purposes so it takes me a fraction of a second to detect a spam and skip to the next.

Phone spammers are not very active here, almost non-existent. However I do switch the phone to silent mode while asleep (and unplug the landline phone, a Chinese lady keeps on calling wanting to sell me parts, around 10-11 AM here, I sleep until much later). Works well, sometimes not so well - like when I forgot to leave the phone on and the courier could not deliver a laptop which was part of a spectrometry system a DoD customer was waiting for.... (Luckily I got that the next day).

Yikes! I've got my email spam down to *zero*. But, I am very aggressive in controlling that means of contact; I don't give out an email address unless I *want* contact from that individual or organization. And, "personalize" each address so I can see if it's been "passed on", leaked, etc. This helps me weed out groups that aren't as protective of my contact info as I'd like.

It also lets me notify folks when *they're* accounts have been hacked (because I know the source of the "leak").

[I recently had a scammer masquerade as a legitimate contact but my email "agent" noticed discrepancies in the headers that I'd typically not bother checking and flagged it as bogus. So, I phoned the party in question to inform htem that they'd likely been hacked. "Yeah, I know. My ex-wife fell for it to the tune of $400..."]

I parse the headers (and content) and use that to drive the "selection algorithm". I don't filter things *out* but, rather, gate things *in*. So, a scammer can't just keep creating new From: headers to bypass any "blacklisting".

When I first deployed my "telephone attendant" (agent), I watched the logs of how individual calls were handled (dropped, routed to /dev/null voicemail, routed to real voicemail, etc.).

Lots of contacts from folks telling me my microsoft license was *expired*. Or, to renew (!) the warranty on my car (yet they don't know what make/model?). Or, for debt relief (we have *no* debt). Or, to verify my ______ account. Or...

Also found several messages from different phone numbers with the same voice print (my attendant tries to identify the caller in case it doesn't recognize the number originating the call). Robots are easy to identify cuz they never get colds, laryngitis, etc. :>

I've found that the most effective filter criteria is: do they use one of our names in their message. Otherwise, its not specific to us and likely spam.

I've watched folks with cell phones and see them effectively tethered to their phones, carrying them around the house with them (WTF? is that a convenience or an obligation??!). Or, letting everything go to voice mail and then having to periodically "make an effort" to sort through their messages. Or, sorting through email transcripts of incoming messages.

Isn't The Phone supposed to be a convenience function?!

Going forward, I see this as a valuable tool in avoiding exploitation (scammers) from the folks who try to trick you into some action that isn't warranted ("Your grandson is being held on an old warrant. Please send us $X for her bail" -- yeah, there are all sorts of scammers out there!)

When I lived alone, I quickly tired of the phone and dropped my business line. Folks would call when it was convenient for *them* which was often NOT convenient for me (as my sleep-wake cycle is highly variable).

And, playing phone tag is just as bad.

So, I coerced (forced!) folks to adopt email as their sole means of contact. In addition to letting each party address the communication at a time appropriate for their *own* needs, it has the added benefit of documenting the conversation. No more relying on what you THINK was agreed upon!

I have two filters: folk like your first group, who never say anything worthwhile or generate worthwhile followup - I hide those subthreads.

The other group is folk whose posts are only worth reading if someone else responds. Those get marked as "already read" but I can still see them if they produce interesting followup.

But if everyone did that, nobody would ever respond.

Not everyone finds the same people boring. Sometimes even Sloman says something worthwhile. I see those because someone else replies.

I also kill-thread any OP that starts out political.

Sometimes I dumb my output down enough that even Clifford Heath can follow it.

I'll have to push up the level.

Sounds wise. Of course there are various sorts of political. Gnatguy starts off with the proposition that Trump can do no wrong, and goes downhill from there.

Mindless insults are worthwhile?

But Sloman's posts are usually the start of, or embedded in, stupid flame wars.

Pity that the creeps have driven off people who could talk serious electronics.

Sadly, I perceive a couple of posters trying to start a stupid flame war.

No. Clifford and I are discussing, not arguing and insulting one another. We mostly agree.

I rarely read and never respond to the ritual flamers. They don't know much about electronic design anyhow.

I can add a delete filter for posts from someone but I can't seem to filter responses to those posts which may very well have his responses in them and, of course, the reset of the stupid topic I wanted to filter anyway.

Don't want to have to create a filter for every subject I don't care for. Using Agent

boB

John Larkin sees any suggestion that he might not have got something right as a "mindless insult". Since he re-posts a lot of climate change denial propaganda, which is a remarkably mindless activity, this is a trifle ironic.

I don't recall starting any stupid flame wars. I don't see anything wrong in flaming people who try to flame me, as John Larkin is trying to do here.

Name an example. Not that John Larkin's ideas about what might constitutes "serious electronics" are all that reliable.

Clifford Heath did post a fairly inflammatory line.

"Sometimes even Sloman says something worthwhile. "

And John Larkin followed it up with something equally inflammatory and demonstrably false.

"Mindless insults are worthwhile?"

I don't have to post mindless insults - I can always finding something which it is perfectly rational to be rude about, admittedly often about subjects that John Larkin doesn't want to think about, perhaps because he can't think all that well.

Nor does John Larkin. He's great at evolving new and progressively more different circuits but design seems to be beyond him.