Do I have to say it?

Spam.

Or at least that’s what Symantec says, so you can take that for what it’s worth.

Spam is one of those things that’s constantly changing to bust the roadblocks we put up against it. However we as email users are smarter now and we also have better tools to fight the junk.

What’s the best way to filter spam out?

This depends on how you get to your email.

With web-based mail, staying in the browser is the best way to filter the junk out. This mail environment is designed in such as way where the interface is in that "Let me do that for you" mode of operation. And yes, letting the environment take care of the spam on your behalf is the best option.

Using a client on the other hand requires more manual involvement. This is how I use email and I personally like it better. For example, in my setup I have SpamAssassin running on server-side. But I also have the built-in junk filter running on client-side with Mozilla Thunderbird. This combination of local and server is very effective. SA gets rid of most of it while the local filter catches whatever SA doesn’t (and not much gets through). Thunderbird also "trusts" SA which makes it work even better.

With a local client there are many ways to use junk filtration.

Here’s a few:

Mailwasher

There are free and pro versions of this. Works with Incredimail, Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows Live Mail, Mozilla Thunderbird, Gmail, AOL Mail, Yahoo Mail and Hotmail. It’s got all the bases covered.

OnlyMyEmail

This service does not require any software as its handled directly from the web site. Not free. It’s won several awards for its performance.

Cloudmark

Some of you may remember Cloudmark from the past. They’re still around and still doing a great job. Not free, but with a free 15-day trial.

POPFile

Free. Some say this is better than most paid email spam-blocker products. I can honestly say this is the "geekiest" of the bunch as it has a very powerful interface where you can control every single thing that happens. This is, said honestly, a spam filter on steroids. But for some, that might be exactly what you’re looking for. I strongly suggest reading the Quick Start Guide if you want to try it out.

Some people have noted that the voice quality in the videos I produce for PCMech and in personal music recordings I make that have sought-after "FM sound" to them, which loosely translates to "sounds like the dee jay I hear on FM radio".

If you’re the type that records audio and are looking for that particular sound, it’s actually much easier to achieve than most people realize.

It takes three steps.

First is how you model the sound of your own voice when you speak when recording it.

Do you use verbal fillers such as "um..", "ah…", "er…" or the like? Try not to use those. Don’t worry, a lot of people do and it’s a tough habit to break. You can kill most of the fillers by having a "cheat sheet" next to you when speaking. No, it doesn’t contain every word you’re going to say but just a topic list. When you have this list, verbal fillers will usually decrease noticeably.

There are other tricks you can use, such as saying more with each breath, purposely slowing down how fast you speak (but not by much) and trying find a nice happy medium between speaking and announcing.

Modeling your voice just in the way you speak will make a dramatic improvement in the overall recorded sound.

Second on the list is noise reduction.

On most voice recordings people get hiss (a.k.a. "white noise") and background noise they want out of there.

The easiest way to eliminate the unwanted noise is to use a mild noise reduction filter.

Audacity, a free audio recording program, has a such a filter as do most other programs that record audio. Even Camtasia Studio has one.

The reason you want to use a mild filter is because if you filter it too much it will literally cut out parts of your voice – and you don’t want that.

It takes a bit of experimentation to get the proper sound you want from a noise reduction filter.

Third on the list is compression.

Compression above all else is what most people think an "FM Radio" sound sounds like. And for those most part it’s true.

To note: Do not confuse this with file compression because that’s something totally different. What we’re talking about is using a compressor as an audio filter.

Audacity by the way also has compression filters in it.

In FM radio, music and voice are compressed with a live filter so that everything comes out at an even audio level thru your car speakers when you listen to it. Nothing is too loud or too soft. This is why a recorded piece of music sounds different on a home stereo played via CD (or computer) compared to a radio broadcast. It is the compression you’re hearing that makes it sound different.

When you examine an audio wave in an audio editor like Audacity, the original recording has peaks and valleys. When compressed, most of those peaks/valleys are "scrunched" so that it’s all evened out. Volume levels are even across the wave after the filter is applied for the most part.

Another example of compressed audio is a camcorder’s recording. All audio recorded with a camcorder is highly compressed with a live filter which is why it seemingly can "pick up everything". In reality it can’t. What it’s doing when recording is filtering on the fly so it can "hear" whatever is in range, near or far, and even it out appropriately.

If you’ve never experimented with noise reduction filters and compression, you ordinarily won’t get it right the first time. It takes practice to get the sound you want. But once you do you can repeat the process every time you make an audio recording for podcasting or music recording or whatever you do with recorded audio.

To note: I may do more detailed how-to’s on this later but would prefer if you would comment and say whether you would be interested or not. Any/all comments appreciated. I can get seriously detailed on this stuff.

As you may or may not be aware, airlines have been testing out in-flight internet access for consumer flights.

And you just had to know someone would start viewing porn while flying.

Well, that didn’t happen.

But the Association of Professional Flight Attendants thinks it could be a problem.

Let’s put this into perspective for a moment.

How STUPID would you have to be to view porn on a plane? Do you think the guy or girl sitting right next to you won’t see that?

The likely result of this will most likely be "nannied" internet while flying. How lovely. You’re going to pay 10 bucks for internet that’s no better than the filtered crapola at work – because you know the filters are going to censor out things it "thinks" are "bad".

To American Airlines and all other airline companies offering this service: Don’t filter your internet.