Re: N. Miller reply spam
From: N. Miller (nsm_at_blackhole.aosake.net)
Date: 04/16/04
- Next message: N. Miller: "Re: passport e-mails"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Outlook Express 6 Identies and email"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:02:26 -0700
In article <1cc0f01c422af$61f390f0$a301280a@phx.gbl>,
anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> >-----Original Message-----
> >In article <1b9ec01c4210f$93d03b60$a501280a@phx.gbl>,
> >anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> >> Report the spammer here at the Cybertip hotline:
> >Why report porn spam to a missing children hotline?
> Regina replies:
> Because the "cybertip" line name is misleading: this is
> the one way to report ANY unsuitable, child-porn, or
> child-unsuitable spammer directly to the FBI. It just
> happens to be the same site on which to report or look
> for missing children.
The name is completely innocuous. The description was misleading. I would
have thought that any site devoted to locating missing children probably
didn't have the staff to handle the bazillion and one porn site completes,
when the porn sites weren't related to the missing children. It should be
described according to its function.
> As for Mailwasher -- you're in a very decided minority;
> just about everyone else on every userboard I peruse
> loves this program and recommends it.
I wonder; minority compared to what group. I am definitely in the majority
among the spamfighters. I also have had my share of MailWasher spam. No, MW
didn't spam me, MW users who bounced their spam to the forged "Return-
Path:" email address, my email address, spammed me. The bounce is an
abominable feature, and should never be used. My personal choice is to not
support the product as long as it is designed to shift abuse onto
unsuspecting parties.
> And, as for "blocking sender" -- the very very few spams
> which get through BOTH Comcast's spam-filter AND which
> cannot be blacklisted by Mailwasher get stopped this
> way. My OE, which was downloading roughly 35 spams a
> day, now gets only one or two per week.
The Block Sender list only works if the sender is consistently using the
same email address. It is very good, then. Otherwise, it is futile. FWIW, my
mother gets no more than one or two spam email messages per week, even
though the spammers are pelting her address with about 20 messages a day. No
MailWasher. The combination of the tags added by SpamGuard (only about 75%
effective right now), and home grown filters in Mercury Mail are keeping
them in a spam handling account.
My own side of things; well, I am a tad more aggressive with my ISP email
account that with hers. Only two regular correspondents; whitelisted.
Everything else just gets tossed. Most of my email is currently sent to my
domain, to an MTA that I am running. The DNSBLs don't even allow the spam to
be accepted by my MTA.
-- Norman ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
- Next message: N. Miller: "Re: passport e-mails"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Outlook Express 6 Identies and email"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
