On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 09:30, David Liguori wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 15:29 -0500, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote: > > > >>David Hoffman wrote: > >> > > > > > >>TMDA anoys people. Period. Even if they reply to chanlenges, most of > >>them are anoyed they had to jump through the loops in order to > >>communicate with you. The fact you don't know they are anoyed (or don't > >>care to know) doesn't mean they are not anoyed. > > > > --- > > guilty as charged - any of my friends that send me these things that I > > must acknowledge to send them email goes into the bit bucket for the > > terminally clueless. > > > > Craig > > > My own feeling about using anti-spam measures that actively annoy people, > as well as the spam issue in general, is that it's not a big enough issue to take such measures. > If you take reasonable precautions with your email address and use spam filtering, > what gets through is not nearly as annoying as people telephoning your home selling credit > card offers. Just delete it, and move on. Those who complain of getting thousands of > spams a day should figure out what they may have done to encourage such a situation, > learn from their mistakes, and swallow the inconvenience of getting a new email address. A new email address is not needed. There are several very effective spam filters out there such a spamassassin that can eliminate 90% of the spam one might receive. The reminder that gets through is easily handled. You are correct, simple measures can remove 90% of the spam from your inbox. If you have control of an MTA greylisting in combination with spamassassin is as near 100% effective as you can get with any type of solution. TMDA is a solution that annoys most legit users and for that reason alone is not a very good solution. As far as the telephone solicitors, the national do not call registry works wonders. :) -- Scot L. Harris webid@xxxxxxxxxx I selected E5 ... but I didn't hear "Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs"!
