From: "Sunder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> None of those things work. Most spammers don't give a shit if you don't
> receive email. I can attest to this by the slew of spam going to
> hostmaster, webmaster, and the like on many networks. What they're really
> selling is "ten million addresses" and s
None of those things work. Most spammers don't give a shit if you don't
receive email. I can attest to this by the slew of spam going to
hostmaster, webmaster, and the like on many networks. What they're really
selling is "ten million addresses" and spam software. Even if 9 million
of those ar
From: "James A. Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Solution is obvious and has been known for a long time
> Integrate payment with email. If anyone not on your approved
> list wants to send you mail, they have to pay you x, where x is
> a trivial sum, say a cent or two.
>
> Spammers wind up sending h
--
On 14 Aug 2002 at 4:36, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> For instance, limiting the number of recipients of an email
> (the cryptogeek system I'm working on [m-o-o-t] just allows
> one), or limiting the number of emails one IP can send per
> day (adjusted for number of users).
>
> There was an E
Greg Broiles wrote:
[...]
>> Osirusoft seems to be a spam blocker, but blocking legitimate mail is going
>> too far. I'd rather have the spam. And I object strongly to third (or
>> fourth) parties deciding what to do with my mail.
>
> It's the recipient, or someone acting on their behalf, who's
anywhere I can find. 208.249.200.24
is on one list (xbl.selwerd.cx), but that isn't (?) the sender.
Osirusoft seems to be a spam blocker, but blocking legitimate mail is going
too far. I'd rather have the spam. And I object strongly to third (or
fourth) parties deciding what to do with my mail.
(
armenides.zen.co.uk was on spam blocklists until very recently - see
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=212.23.8.69+group:news.admin.net-abuse.*&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=aij5pl%2414guph%241%40ID-66783.news.dfncis.de&rnum=1
for a discussion of that, or
htt
