Assuming that spam filtering is automatically based on content
is very naive; accusing someone of trying to restrict what you read
based on that assumption is silly.
I run my own mail server that has one of the most restrictive mail
filters on the planet, and not one iota of the filters is
On 10/6/05, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good points Harv.
But I fail to see why anyone would use such an address
as their primary email address.
Matter of personal choice ... I have other addresses I use for other purposes.
My ISP (sitting across the room from me) is set
Good points Harv.
But I fail to see why anyone would use such an address
as their primary email address.
My ISP (sitting across the room from me) is set up in such
a way that if I alter my return address in any way from what it is
the ISP will kick it right back to me without sending it out.
Th
Hi Andy
Below, a copy of an Email I sent to Barry J. Shelley, N1VXY,
Chief Financial Officer and Business Manager, ARRL, Inc. on September 1
... just a day or
two after they announced their new "service". Seems my
apprehension was well grounded.
Harv
===
My note to B
We have found that some of the people that use email addresses supplied by
the ARRL, e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED] , ( an email forwarding service) are not
getting some messages. Seems that the ARRL new anti-spam program is tagging
a lot of things a spam when in fact it's not. Those of you that use
