> > it occurs to me that most of the methods that have been proposed > > for filtering spam from mailing lists have a lot in common with NATs. > > actually, have more in common with firewalls. I beg to differ. People install firewalls to filter their own incoming and/or outgoing traffic. Personally I think firewalls are overrated, but people can filter traffic on their own networks if they want to, using whatever criteria they think best. Those who are complaining about spam on this list have the ability to filter their own incoming traffic. What they're wanting is for someone else to filter their traffic for them, and for everyone else on the list also, using poorly-chosen filtering criteria on which there's no consensus. Keith
- filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Eric Rosen
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Leo Vegoda
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Robert Elz
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Francis Dupont
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs ned . freed
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs grenville armitage
- Social solutions mean lawyers... Re: filtering... grenville armitage
- Re: filtering of mailing lists and NATs Keith Moore