On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:54:50PM -0500, Allie Martin wrote:
> This method, though very effective except for the Nicks most
> recent example where a spam message was indeed addressed directly to
> him, doesn't seem to go down well with the others Steve. I'm wondering
> why.
It is because they don't see the direct cause and effect.
> Possibly it's because it entails an indirect way of achieving the
> effect, and furthermore it entails creating other filters when a
> single filter could be used instead.
However there is no single filter that will catch all spam. As tracer
said, a mere 5% of his spam matches the sender=receiver catagory. Reacting to
spam sent is not an option since blocking addresses used is futile, those
addresses will never be used again.
Finally, my system introduces exactly two added filters than most people
would normally have. Most people already have the mailing list filters so
they don't have to add it. All they have to add is the to/cc/from filter and
the spam filter itself. Hard to beat that.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
