From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 23:24:48 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A9216A4CE for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:24:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEF743D5C for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:24:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1108.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 22A801C0008E for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:24:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1108.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 00FF61C0008D for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:24:46 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050310232447418.00FF61C0008D@mwinf1108.wanadoo.fr Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 00:24:46 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <595560403.20050311002446@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <577aeb585de8853de552772d76cb2a96@lafn.org> References: <577aeb585de8853de552772d76cb2a96@lafn.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: how to deal with spam for good? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:24:49 -0000 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