Re: salt

[Gregory Young]

Hey BV:
I sent you an email, (removing the frontal lobe piece), to confirm your
address, as I was ready to send salt posts to you, but never heard back from
you. Did you receive my email?
I know of a number of educated folks that do add salt to their ponds,
routinely each spring and let the levels drop with water changes. They are
dedicated (purist type) Koi folks, who do not have any plants in their
systems, just massive ($$$$) filters, etc. I respect them, but I personally
don't go that route, because I would like to save salt as a therapeutic
agent, and don't want to run the risk of selection forces....
The folks I refer to practice all the proper procedures with quarantine,
etc.
If they get disease, they do the appropriate water quality test, then fish
studies (scrapings, etc), and Rx based on what they find. Often they will
use the "bigger guns" to Rx, but they know how to dose them, and what to
watch for.
Until there is "scientific" proof, there will be 2 schools of thought on
routine salt addition, so you will see no conclusive, overwhelming evidence
on either side.
I treat my fish, like I do my patients.. I don't give anything, unless I
have an indication for it. (First do no harm is my tenet). That approach has
worked well for me over the last 23 plus years of practice, and 20 plus
years of ponding.
Happy ponding,
Greg
PS As I said in earlier posts, there are no studies that confirm either way
to be the "right" way.
The fact that folks can do either and be successful, IMHO, is because they
maintain good water quality, and avoid the conditions leading to disease.


--


"BenignVanilla" > wrote in
message ...
> "Gregory Young" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Thanks for the reply Tom.
> > I haven't seen others posting to this topic, so I assume most want to
keep
> > the heck out of this discussion, and quite frankly I can certainly
> > understand why, it's been beat to death!
> > I stopped replying, trying to go private email instead, but my offer to
do
> > so was not accepted.
> > After the second public posting about good diagnosticians being able to
> just
> > look at a pond and figure out the problem (I let the first go), I felt I
> had
> > better reply, for fear some might actually believe that was possible.
> > Have to run.. will catch you later,
> > Happy ponding,
> > Greg
> <snip>
>
> From a silent one...I have kept out of the discussion mostly because the
> reading is better then the writing for me! :) I am somewhere on the fence
> about this topic. I think you both raise some good points, but for me two
> points are the most important. 1) I am against standardizing a medication
> process. I don't take a pill unless I need it, and I don't think I want to
> do that to my fish, so no salt just yet. 2) Unless I missed it, which is
> possible, neither poster can provide a scientific study that says, "here
duh
> facts". I think this topic is somewhat ambiguous as we do not have a clear
> data set to work from, but I must admit, I lean towards Greg's school.
There
> is just something 'fishy' about salting my fish. I dunno. My jury is still
> out.
>
> BV.
>
>

[BenignVanilla]

"Gregory Young" > wrote in message
...
> Hey BV:
> I sent you an email, (removing the frontal lobe piece), to confirm your
> address, as I was ready to send salt posts to you, but never heard back
from
> you. Did you receive my email?
> I know of a number of educated folks that do add salt to their ponds,
> routinely each spring and let the levels drop with water changes. They are
> dedicated (purist type) Koi folks, who do not have any plants in their
> systems, just massive ($$$$) filters, etc. I respect them, but I
personally
> don't go that route, because I would like to save salt as a therapeutic
> agent, and don't want to run the risk of selection forces....
> The folks I refer to practice all the proper procedures with quarantine,
> etc.
> If they get disease, they do the appropriate water quality test, then fish
> studies (scrapings, etc), and Rx based on what they find. Often they will
> use the "bigger guns" to Rx, but they know how to dose them, and what to
> watch for.
> Until there is "scientific" proof, there will be 2 schools of thought on
> routine salt addition, so you will see no conclusive, overwhelming
evidence
> on either side.
> I treat my fish, like I do my patients.. I don't give anything, unless I
> have an indication for it. (First do no harm is my tenet). That approach
has
> worked well for me over the last 23 plus years of practice, and 20 plus
> years of ponding.
> Happy ponding,
> Greg
> PS As I said in earlier posts, there are no studies that confirm either
way
> to be the "right" way.
> The fact that folks can do either and be successful, IMHO, is because they
> maintain good water quality, and avoid the conditions leading to disease.
<snip>

I concur.

BTW, I'd love to see the posts you said you mailed, but I don't see your
email in my inbox.

BV.

[John Hines]

"BenignVanilla" >
wrote:

>BTW, I'd love to see the posts you said you mailed, but I don't see your
>email in my inbox.

Please fix your email system. People in this group are going out of
their way to un-mung your address, and not getting through. This isn't
the first case, I got bit by this also.

Your anti-spam system is broke, please fix it.

I've noticed that most spammers don't pick up on the reply to header,
take a look at my headers here.

[BenignVanilla]

"John Hines" > wrote in message
...
> "BenignVanilla" >
> wrote:
>
> >BTW, I'd love to see the posts you said you mailed, but I don't see your
> >email in my inbox.
>
> Please fix your email system. People in this group are going out of
> their way to un-mung your address, and not getting through. This isn't
> the first case, I got bit by this also.
>
> Your anti-spam system is broke, please fix it.
>
> I've noticed that most spammers don't pick up on the reply to header,
> take a look at my headers here.

John, I disagree. I use my BV address only for Usenet, and since I started
using the inserted gibberish, the amount of SPAM I receive has plummeted.
Simply removing the obvious wording from my address will allow the mail to
reach me. Besides, this is a very common Usenet practice, so I do not think
it is too much of a big deal.

I understand this can be a nuisance, so I do not expect anyone to go out of
their way to do it, if it is too much. I have 10's of messages in my box now
from fellow rec.ponders. I am not sure why I did not receive Greg's. That is
to be determined.

BV.

[John Hines]

"BenignVanilla" >
wrote:

>"John Hines" > wrote in message
...
>> "BenignVanilla" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >BTW, I'd love to see the posts you said you mailed, but I don't see your
>> >email in my inbox.
>>
>> Please fix your email system. People in this group are going out of
>> their way to un-mung your address, and not getting through. This isn't
>> the first case, I got bit by this also.
>>
>> Your anti-spam system is broke, please fix it.
>>
>> I've noticed that most spammers don't pick up on the reply to header,
>> take a look at my headers here.
>
>John, I disagree. I use my BV address only for Usenet, and since I started
>using the inserted gibberish, the amount of SPAM I receive has plummeted.
>Simply removing the obvious wording from my address will allow the mail to
>reach me. Besides, this is a very common Usenet practice, so I do not think
>it is too much of a big deal.

It just breaks the usefulness of decent software. One klick or key is
all that should be needed to reply, and has been for a long time.

>I understand this can be a nuisance, so I do not expect anyone to go out of
>their way to do it, if it is too much. I have 10's of messages in my box now
>from fellow rec.ponders. I am not sure why I did not receive Greg's. That is
>to be determined.

Again, IF IT WORKED when people bother to use it.

And I'm pointing out that greg isn't the only that has had problems.

[BenignVanilla]

"John Hines" > wrote in message
<snip>
> And I'm pointing out that greg isn't the only that has had problems.

Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll happily
remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it done...just
give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.

BV.

[joe]

BenignVanilla wrote:

> Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
> Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
> either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll happily
> remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it done...just
> give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.

Here's what I do, YMMV.

For every person (or group of people) I want to receive mail from I set up a
"rule" in my email program. The rule simply states, when you get a message
from this person (a specific email address) place the email in this folder.

So, when an email arrives, the program checks through the rules. If it finds
an applicable rule it moves the message, otherwise it puts it in a "look
then dump" folder.

This way, I know when an email is something I want to read, and very much
reduces the list of emails I have to look through to be sure I'm not missing
someone important (like this morning I got an email from Sue Alexander,
that was in my look and then dump folder because there was no rule for her.
So I made one that will now place any message from her in my pond folder)

I have other rules that automatically put stuff in the trash from people or
organizations I know I don't want to hear from.

Still, every morning I have to look at about 100 emails - but better than
1000.


Joe



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Sue Alexandre]

Good idea - I should set aside some time to do the same - my SPAM e-mail is
totally out of control, and I'm sure I'm deleting some mail that I WANT to
read simply because I'm so hurriedly "deleting" everything that looks like
SPAM. And by the way, I'm honored to now be a "rule" in your mailbox.
:)
Sue

"joe" > wrote in message
...
> BenignVanilla wrote:
>
> > Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
> > Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
> > either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll
happily
> > remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it
done...just
> > give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.
>
> Here's what I do, YMMV.
>
> For every person (or group of people) I want to receive mail from I set up
a
> "rule" in my email program. The rule simply states, when you get a message
> from this person (a specific email address) place the email in this
folder.
>
> So, when an email arrives, the program checks through the rules. If it
finds
> an applicable rule it moves the message, otherwise it puts it in a "look
> then dump" folder.
>
> This way, I know when an email is something I want to read, and very much
> reduces the list of emails I have to look through to be sure I'm not
missing
> someone important (like this morning I got an email from Sue Alexander,
> that was in my look and then dump folder because there was no rule for
her.
> So I made one that will now place any message from her in my pond folder)
>
> I have other rules that automatically put stuff in the trash from people
or
> organizations I know I don't want to hear from.
>
> Still, every morning I have to look at about 100 emails - but better than
> 1000.
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[John Hines]

"BenignVanilla" >
wrote:

>"John Hines" > wrote in message
><snip>
>> And I'm pointing out that greg isn't the only that has had problems.
>
>Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
>Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
>either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll happily
>remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it done...just
>give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.

I've had trouble, so has greg. I don't know how much more evidence of
missing email you'll find.

Actually, what I recommend is to keep what you got, but add a reply to
header. Historically, people have often read news from accounts other
than their main account. Thus there is a special header that tells the
news reader to send email there, rather than the news account, if it is
set (otherwise it defaults).

For example, look at my header(s). the news addy is jbhines at newsguy,
which gets NOTHING but spam. My main addy is john at jhines dot org,
which is my main email addy. This addy gets like 1% of the spam that the
other one gets. And that is with no munging or other spam protection,
other than dumping stuff that isn't actually addressed (IE used the bcc
header) to me.

You use MS OE which kinda ignores what was found to have worked in the
almost decade of use people had before MS discovered usenet. The reply
to header seems to be ignored by most spammers. I don't use OE my self,
so I can't help you with it, but it should be able to show, and set
headers.

[John Rutz]

BenignVanilla wrote:
> "John Hines" > wrote in message
> <snip>
>
>>And I'm pointing out that greg isn't the only that has had problems.
>
>
> Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
> Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
> either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll happily
> remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it done...just
> give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.
>
> BV.
>
>


-- na dont since i put it in mine spam email has gone way down
I get cought by those anti spame when I hit the reply button with out
looking at the return addy so I just resend no big deal





John Rutz
Z5 New Mexico

never miss a good oportunity to shut up

see my pond at:

http://www.fuerjefe.com

[BenignVanilla]

"joe" > wrote in message
...
> BenignVanilla wrote:
>
> > Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
> > Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
> > either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll
happily
> > remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it
done...just
> > give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.
>
> Here's what I do, YMMV.
>
> For every person (or group of people) I want to receive mail from I set up
a
> "rule" in my email program. The rule simply states, when you get a message
> from this person (a specific email address) place the email in this
folder.
<snip>

I have often considered this but feared all of the work needed to get all of
my friends set up with rules. I guess it is time for my main accounts.
Unfortunately, my BV account is checked either on my laptop via OE or via a
webmail app, as I only use this account for usenet. I guess it's time to
move it to my Outlook machine.


BV.

[joe]

BenignVanilla wrote:

> I have often considered this but feared all of the work needed to get all of
> my friends set up with rules

It's not so bad. Do it when you receive an email from them rather than all
at once. You'll be done in no time, plus you don't have to worry that you
missed an email from someone important.

Joe



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[joe]

Sue Alexandre wrote:

> And by the way, I'm honored to now be a "rule" in your mailbox.
> :)
> Sue


Ah, shucks.


Joe



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[John Rutz]

hate to tell you this John your from and reply to addys are the same

John Hines wrote:
> "BenignVanilla" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"John Hines" > wrote in message
>><snip>
>>
>>>And I'm pointing out that greg isn't the only that has had problems.
>>
>>Do you mean others have had problems sending to me? I don't understand.
>>Anyway, I don't feel so strongly about this, that I would want to argue
>>either side. If others feel the anti-SPAM content is a pain, I'll happily
>>remove it from my email address settings. In fact, consider it done...just
>>give me a few days to remember to do it on all of my PC's.
>
>
> I've had trouble, so has greg. I don't know how much more evidence of
> missing email you'll find.
>
> Actually, what I recommend is to keep what you got, but add a reply to
> header. Historically, people have often read news from accounts other
> than their main account. Thus there is a special header that tells the
> news reader to send email there, rather than the news account, if it is
> set (otherwise it defaults).
>
> For example, look at my header(s). the news addy is jbhines at newsguy,
> which gets NOTHING but spam. My main addy is john at jhines dot org,
> which is my main email addy. This addy gets like 1% of the spam that the
> other one gets. And that is with no munging or other spam protection,
> other than dumping stuff that isn't actually addressed (IE used the bcc
> header) to me.
>
> You use MS OE which kinda ignores what was found to have worked in the
> almost decade of use people had before MS discovered usenet. The reply
> to header seems to be ignored by most spammers. I don't use OE my self,
> so I can't help you with it, but it should be able to show, and set
> headers.
>
>


--





John Rutz
Z5 New Mexico

never miss a good oportunity to shut up

see my pond at:

http://www.fuerjefe.com

[John Hines]

John Rutz > wrote:

>hate to tell you this John your from and reply to addys are the same

Ok, I guess that would make the other addy's spam from a dictionary
attack.

Oh well.

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:38:30 -0700
joe > wrote:

> BenignVanilla wrote:
>
> > I have often considered this but feared all of the work needed to
> > get all of my friends set up with rules
>
> It's not so bad. Do it when you receive an email from them rather than
> all at once. You'll be done in no time, plus you don't have to worry
> that you missed an email from someone important.
>
> Joe
>
OTOH, I saved my spam for a couple of weeks and then set filters in
Sylpheed-claws for all the "From:" headers. I did this about two months
ago and my spam went from several dozen a day to three or four a week.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Unofficial "Wizard of Odds," A.H.P.
Original PORG "Water Wizard," R.P.
"Wize(ned) Wizard," A.P.F-P-Y.
Barely Tolerated Wizard, A.J.L & A.A.L

[Theo van Daele]

> > > I have often considered this but feared all of the work needed to
> > > get all of my friends set up with rules

FWIW, a program like MailWasher (http://www.mailwasher.net) is quite useful
(and free unless you want to make a donation to the writer). It
autodetects spam based on ORDB, Spamcop etc... databases, and you can set up
nice rules, friends lists, blacklists.

Best thing is you can do this without actually downloading the mails (it
only retrieves the headers).

You can then delete/bounce messages with one swift "Process" command, and
only download the mails you actually want to read.

Saves quite a bit of time.

That said, I can see both sides of the discussion. On estimate, about 50%
of all emails today are spam (that's billions of mails per day), and I had
to close a few older accounts because I got about 1.000 messages a week :-(

However, spam robots are concentrating less & less on newsgroups it seems,
one of the big no-no's now is to have your email address on your personal
website. That will create more spam than putting a usable address on
usenet.

[BenignVanilla]

"Theo van Daele" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > > I have often considered this but feared all of the work needed to
> > > > get all of my friends set up with rules
>
> FWIW, a program like MailWasher (http://www.mailwasher.net) is quite
useful
> (and free unless you want to make a donation to the writer). It
> autodetects spam based on ORDB, Spamcop etc... databases, and you can set
up
> nice rules, friends lists, blacklists.
<snip>

I have been using cloudmark's SPAMnet on my main PC for awhile now. It works
incredibly.

BV.