Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:24:46 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how to deal with spam for good? Message-ID: <595560403.20050311002446@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <577aeb585de8853de552772d76cb2a96@lafn.org> References: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNIELBFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> <577aeb585de8853de552772d76cb2a96@lafn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Hardie writes: > Spam will only go away when people no longer respond to it. When there > is no revenue generated to cover the cost of spamming then it will end. Exactly. A surprising number of people _do_ respond to spam--more than enough to justify sending it. Ironically, I seem to see a slight decline in the spam I receive myself, which has dropped a bit from the usual 1500 messages per day. Some weeks ago I removed my e-mail address entirely from my Web site, so that it could not be harvested. It seems unlikely that this could have much effect since it has been out there for years, but perhaps it does. In any case, I don't use any automated filters for spam. I have filters that sort probable spam into folders that I periodically examine, but I don't delete anything automatically because even a single false positive can cost me more than I'd ever save by running automatic spam filters. As it is, sometimes I can't answer clients by e-mail because their own ISPs (e.g., anything run by Time-Warner) simply throw away my e-mail because it doesn't come from a Big ISP. If fewer people respond to spam, spam will decline. If more people respond to it, it will increase. It's a simple as that. There's no fundamental, objectively verifiable difference between spam and any other e-mail, so no automated or technical solution will ever work completely. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?595560403.20050311002446>