Replies contextualised and intertwined
Apologies to any reader stumbling into this thread.
That sort of advice is not much use to those silly enough to NOT munge their
email address when using newsgroups then.
I do not know, and neither would you, what antispam a poster may be using if
any on their personal emails.
Munging does absolutely nothing to hinder replies in the groups.
You just can't seem to get this into your head.
To advise them not to munge in the groups, at the outset, in my opinion, is
both reckless and unforgivable.
Agreed - that is assuming a poster is aware of basic home computing
software. Not all ISPs(email providers) provide a full security service.
60% of UK users do not have this basic security on their computers.
Some posters have not even realised their ISP/email provider had on offer an
antispam filter.
You should be preeching to them - not me.
I was right
You can't just hit reply-by-email and expect it to work without having to
go
through hoops. This is not acceptable: Good anti-spam measures do not
hinder legitimate email or shift the burden to legitimate senders in any
way, shape or form. False negatives are better than false positives,
though both should be minimized as much as possible.
Sorry - you lost me re the above para - but please do not bother to try and
expound on it.
You can't. Do it on the receive end, not the send end of the email
process.
Oh I am pleased you at last agree - but of course the protection should be
at the poster's end - so tell them - not me - I already have that
protection - did you not read my posts fully?
Depends on how and who you report it to. It takes experience to learn
this.
Oh does it - do tell me something new - have you ever received a report back
to say 'what' action has been taken? In two years I have had a few
acknowledgements to say a report has been received(no more than 20 I would
say)from IP owners,ISPs and email providers, whatever you want to call the
organisation to whom a report is sent. Some dont even publish abuse links.
I can report, depending on my time, up to 50 spams a week. How many do you
report.
Now this is where you might be able to teach me something - I use two
leading antispam fighting sites to parse and report. I use their experience
etc. So how do you and to whom do you report your spam? But then you would
not have to as you have such a great blocker from your email provider?
That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of anti-spam efforts.
No it does not - warning them is helping them to not attract spam.
If your only goal in fighting spam is mitigating it from your inbox, you
might
as well just not be connected to the net. If you want to fight spam
instead of just playing lip service to the cause, find an email provider
that can do server-side filtering and reject based on filter criteria at
the time of the SMTP transaction.
Once again you are using your soap-box diatribe on me - go elsewhere and
preach to the unconverted, pease.
Yes. There is no informed reason not to.
Apart from giving the harvesters yet another address to sell on to the
spammers.
I fully realize this. My point is if your anti-spam strategy is
effective,
you do not need to worry about address harvesters at all.
My point is yet again - you may be protected - but what about the others who
may not be?
ISPs are incompetent at providing anything other than an Internet
connection. ISPs should not be confused with email providers. You can
get email service from someone other than your ISP.
The above does not make any sense at all. If ISPs are incompetent at
providing anything other than Internet connections I assume you are saying
they either do not provide email services or if they do provide email
service, they cannot run it properly? How stupid can that be. Mine
provides the lot, and does it very well indeed.
Work with your email provider to block the non-responsive sites.
I do already
Work with your email provider to make sure spam havens are blocked.
I do already
That's my point: Munging *forces* the problem onto the user level where
it
doesn't belong.
Rubbish
My view is if they can't provide it responsibly, they should not provide
it
at all.
So who is going to take it away from them?
Let someone competent do it. Fortunately, this is becoming more
common. Some ISPs, particularly discount ones, no longer offer anything
outside their core service: An Internet connection. If you want email,
news, web hosting, etc., you have to find providers for those as well.
That's the way it should be.
And from whom do these email providers get their allocations from????
I have yet to get any satisfactory response to reports from them either.
In conclusion - from Spamhaus-
Spam continues to plague the Internet because a small number of large
Internet Service Providers sell service knowingly to professional spammers
for profit, or do nothing to prevent spammers operating from their networks.
Although all networks claim to be anti-spam, some network executives factor
revenue made from hosting known spam gangs into corporate policy decisions
to continue to sell services to spam operations. Others simply decide that
closing the holes in their end-user broadband systems that allow spammers
access would be too costly to their bottom lines.
The majority of the world's service providers succeed in keeping spammers
off their networks and work to maintain an anti-spam reputation, but their
work is undermined daily by the few networks who, out of corporate greed or
mismanagement, choose to be part of the problem. The world's worst spam
problem networks today are:
Spam continues to plague the Internet because a small number of large
Internet Service Providers sell service knowingly to professional spammers
for profit, or do nothing to prevent spammers operating from their networks.
Although all networks claim to be anti-spam, some network executives
factor revenue made from hosting known spam gangs into corporate policy
decisions to continue to sell services to spam operations. Others simply
decide that closing the holes in their end-user broadband systems that allow
spammers access would be too costly to their bottom lines.
The majority of the world's service providers succeed in keeping
spammers off their networks and work to maintain an anti-spam reputation,
but their work is undermined daily by the few networks who, out of corporate
greed or mismanagement, choose to be part of the problem.
So please do not bother to reply to me further - I am afraid that any
further reasoning/argument from yourself will fall on deaf ears.
I do my bit - you say you do yours.
Rgds
Antioch
