Apart from the spammers?
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Apart from the spammers?

Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
normal low traffic again.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Apart from the spammers?
>
> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
> normal low traffic again.

Seconded.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> Apart from the spammers?
>>
>> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
>> normal low traffic again.
>
> Seconded.

Well, the spammers didn't go.

But I'm here again, without the spam on Eternal September !

eternal-september.org

cheers

g ;- )

Geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Apart from the spammers?
>>>
>>> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
>>> normal low traffic again.
>>
>> Seconded.
>
>Well, the spammers didn't go.
>
>
>But I'm here again, without the spam on Eternal September !

Yaaay!
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:

> On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>> Apart from the spammers?
> >>
> >> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
> >> normal low traffic again.
> >
> > Seconded.
>
> Well, the spammers didn't go.

I think the deadline is Monday 26th.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:

> > On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > >> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >>> Apart from the spammers?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to our
> > >> normal low traffic again.
> > >
> > > Seconded.
> >
> > Well, the spammers didn't go.

> I think the deadline is Monday 26th.

I thought it was the 22nd (a couple days ago).
--
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." --Genesis 2:24. If I get a wife, then I'll die after mating her as a male alate ant. :) (L/C)NY (wood dragon).
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:
>
> > > On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > > > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > > >> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Apart from the spammers?
> > > >>
> > > >> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return
> > > >> to our normal low traffic again.
> > > >
> > > > Seconded.
> > >
> > > Well, the spammers didn't go.
>
> > I think the deadline is Monday 26th.
>
> I thought it was the 22nd (a couple days ago).

Most of the spam on this group seemed to stop about 6 days ago but it
was still getting through on <sci.electronics.design> until 18 hours
ago. It seems to have stopped now, hopefully for good ( ...certainly
for better).

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On Sat Feb 24 20:47:08 2024 liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
> Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
> > Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > > > > Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > > > >> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> Apart from the spammers?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return
> > > > >> to our normal low traffic again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seconded.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the spammers didn't go.
> >
> > > I think the deadline is Monday 26th.
> >
> > I thought it was the 22nd (a couple days ago).
>
> Most of the spam on this group seemed to stop about 6 days ago but it
> was still getting through on <sci.electronics.design> until 18 hours
> ago. It seems to have stopped now, hopefully for good ( ...certainly
> for better).
>
>
> --
> ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
> (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
> www.poppyrecords.co.uk

John started this thread last Monday 2-19. The last spam entry was on Thursday 2-22. THANKS! to whoever pulled this off. I hope it sticks. I look forward to resuming our eclectic exchanges.

"If you notice the sound, it's wrong" ~ Roy W. Rising

On 24/02/2024 21:19, Roy W. Rising wrote:

> John started this thread last Monday 2-19. The last spam entry was on Thursday 2-22. THANKS! to whoever pulled this off. I hope it sticks. I look forward to resuming our eclectic exchanges.
>
Google did it. They cut their peering connection with usenet. If they
hadn't, many usenet server owners were considering de-peering their end
of the connection, or just killing all posts originating on the Google
servers. Just as we no longer see their posts, Google Groups members
will no longer see ours.

The elimination of received spam before the cut off date was the result
of some heroic programming by many news server admins round the world.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Geoff <geoff@geoffwood.org> said...news:urbhp5$rkh2$2@dont-email.me:

> On 20/02/2024 10:44 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <l3hdgvF1v9sU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> Apart from the spammers?
>>>
>>> Yes, and in four days the spammers will be gone and we can return to
>>> our normal low traffic again.
>>
>> Seconded.
>
> Well, the spammers didn't go.
>
>
> But I'm here again, without the spam on Eternal September !
>
> eternal-september.org
>
> cheers
>
> g ;- )

+1
david

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Apart from the spammers?

Ja.

On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
> Apart from the spammers?

Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
we glide through the hallways trying to find
out whether there is really any benefit to sample
rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
useful that Reaper can't. :)

Tobiah <toby@tobiah.org> wrote:

> On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
> > Apart from the spammers?
>
> Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
> we glide through the hallways trying to find
> out whether there is really any benefit to sample
> rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
> useful that Reaper can't. :)

I would answer "No" to the first one and suggest you could include far
more applications than Reaper in the second.

(Fingers in ears, awaiting explosions.)

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
> On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
>> Apart from the spammers?
>
> Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
> we glide through the hallways trying to find
> out whether there is really any benefit to sample
> rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
> useful that Reaper can't. :)
>
>
<Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher sample
rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my age, the HF
limit is in my ears, not the equipment.

As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you count
as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can use
files from and send files to just about any professional mixing facility
and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble, while
Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

[...]
> As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you count
> as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can use
> files from and send files to just about any professional mixing facility
> and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble, while
> Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.

This is the only reason I have ever heard for usomg Pro-tools. It does
the same things as dozens of other programs for a higher price and a
more difficult learning curve -- but everyone uses it, so everyone uses
it.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 8/03/2024 2:19 am, John Williamson wrote:
> On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
>> On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
>>> Apart from the spammers?
>>
>> Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
>> we glide through the hallways trying to find
>> out whether there is really any benefit to sample
>> rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
>> useful that Reaper can't.  :)
>>
>>
> <Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher sample
> rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my age, the HF
> limit is in my ears, not the equipment.
>
> As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you count
> as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can use
> files from and send files to just about any professional mixing facility
> and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble, while
> Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.
>

A situation engineered by the Apple maxim (initially at least) of
locking the early market leader to a particular computer and interface
platform (and 'cost') early in the evolution of the technology, gaining
a near impenetrable foothold (as in monopoly) from which escape is
difficult.

There have been several attempt at undiscriminating cross-platform
project file formats, the latest being 'DAWproject' files from Presonus,
which includes pretty much all usable info including plugins and
associated parameters.

geoff

On 8/03/2024 10:31 am, geoff wrote:
> On 8/03/2024 2:19 am, John Williamson wrote:
>> On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
>>> On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
>>>> Apart from the spammers?
>>>
>>> Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
>>> we glide through the hallways trying to find
>>> out whether there is really any benefit to sample
>>> rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
>>> useful that Reaper can't.  :)
>>>
>>>
>> <Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher sample
>> rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my age, the
>> HF limit is in my ears, not the equipment.
>>
>> As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you
>> count as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I can
>> use files from and send files to just about any professional mixing
>> facility and know they will drop into their workflow with no trouble,
>> while Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of the market.
>>
>
>
> A situation engineered by the Apple maxim (initially at least) of
> locking the early market leader to a particular computer and interface
> platform (and 'cost') early in the evolution of the technology, gaining
> a near impenetrable foothold (as in monopoly) from which escape is
> difficult.
>
> There have been several attempt at undiscriminating cross-platform
> project file formats, the latest being 'DAWproject' files from Presonus,
> which includes pretty much all usable info including plugins and
> associated parameters.
>
> geoff

https://www.bitwig.com/support/technical_support/dawproject-file-format-faqs-62/

On 8/03/2024 10:49 am, geoff wrote:
> On 8/03/2024 10:31 am, geoff wrote:
>> On 8/03/2024 2:19 am, John Williamson wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2024 21:42, Tobiah wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/24 08:21, John Williamson wrote:
>>>>> Apart from the spammers?
>>>>
>>>> Like spirits with unresolved Earthly business,
>>>> we glide through the hallways trying to find
>>>> out whether there is really any benefit to sample
>>>> rates above 44.1k, and whether Pro-tools does anything
>>>> useful that Reaper can't.  :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <Grin> When I am editing or cleaning up a recording, the higher
>>> sample rates let me do a better job. When listening at home, at my
>>> age, the HF limit is in my ears, not the equipment.
>>>
>>> As for the Pro Tools against Reaper thing, it depends on what you
>>> count as useful. One good point about Pro Tools, though, is that I
>>> can use files from and send files to just about any professional
>>> mixing facility and know they will drop into their workflow with no
>>> trouble, while Reaper tends to be used more at the home studio end of
>>> the market.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A situation engineered by the Apple maxim (initially at least) of
>> locking the early market leader to a particular computer and interface
>> platform (and 'cost') early in the evolution of the technology,
>> gaining a near impenetrable foothold (as in monopoly) from which
>> escape is difficult.
>>
>> There have been several attempt at undiscriminating cross-platform
>> project file formats, the latest being 'DAWproject' files from
>> Presonus, which includes pretty much all usable info including plugins
>> and associated parameters.
>>
>> geoff
>
> https://www.bitwig.com/support/technical_support/dawproject-file-format-faqs-62/
>

.... and of course there is always AAF.

geoff