Patterico's Pontifications



Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:57 pm

SUICIDE BOMBINGS IN CASABLANCA: Read about it here. The papers are just writing the reports now. They haven’t quite decided whether the bombers committed suicide or died trying to escape.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:44 pm

SHUT UP BILL AND HILLARY: It’s hard to disagree with that sentiment, even when it is expressed by Susan Estrogen.


Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:38 pm

A RASPBERRY TO RASPBERRY: Memo to Washington Post columnists: it’s okay to read the New York Times — really. When you are writing about a scandal involving the New York Times, it might even be a good idea. Why do I say this? Take a look at the following ignorant quotes from William Raspberry’s latest piece:

“Was Blair hired — and were the negative signals about him ignored — because he is black? I don’t know. Maybe no one does.”

Gee, Bill — maybe no one does. And maybe Howell Raines does. But how would you know that? You would have to have read the story in the New York Times. Or, alternatively, you could have read Patterico’s posts (here, here, and most recently here).

Raspberry then notes that Blair was a good schmoozer. “But Blair is black, and for too many of my colleagues that fact trumps everything else. If his credentials weren’t checked, if he was promoted beyond his level of competence, if he ended up lying and stealing to support the image he worked to sell, and if his bosses believed the lies longer than they should have — don’t you see? . . . It’s because of affirmative action.”

Yep. I do see. Because I read the quote, straight from Howell Raines’s mouth. My question is, Bill: why didn’t you??

Mr. Raspberry, next time you want to open your word-hole and start pontificating on some topic, do your readers a favor and do a little better research.


THE ANSWER: Richard “Intrepid Reader”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:48 pm

THE ANSWER: Richard “Intrepid Reader” Wolfe solves my question about spam e-mail headers:

“You got questions, we got answers…

“Spam subject headers often contain nonsense strings in an
attempt to fool spam filters. The nonsense strings are generated
one per email at the time of the spam-blast, so that each of the
(perhaps millions) of emails has a unique subject line.

“In the earliest days of the fight against spam, an easy way for
an ISP to keep spam from flooding its users’ email boxes (and
thus its servers) was to simply compare subject lines of all
incoming emails to each other. For example, if AOL noticed that
five thousand different users all got emails with the exact same
subject line over a period of just a few seconds, it could
reasonably assume that this was spam, and refuse any future
emails with this same subject line. As it can take several hours
to send out millions of emails, they could effectively block a
large amount of that particular spam-blast.

“This is no longer a particularly effective way of masking spam,
it’s just one of the first, and you still see it used a lot. In
fact, it’s actually hurting spammers in some cases. My
particular spam-blocker of choice, SpamAssassin, ‘reads’ every
one of my incoming emails and assigns it a grade based on a
variety of criteria, junking ones that it deems likely to be
spam. The presence of a gibberish string in the subject line is
a strike against the email.”

Thanks Richard! I will have to check out SpamAssassin. I currently use Mail Washer, but I am always looking for a new and better solution to the ever-increasing spam problem.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1767 secs.