Re: Spam wars (was test)

"Jacey Bedford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bogus address
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> >That isn't scalable.  My own setup is bad enough.  All my mail transfer
> >agent looks at is the SMTP envelope (no filtering beyond "does the
> >recipient exist?") and in particular I never even see the headers of
> >suspected spams.  But over the last month the spam load has got to the
> >point where most of the traffic between this machine and my ISP is used
> >in rejecting spams; with this rate of increase, unless Demon can make
> >the damn things disappear from their server without me ever seeing them
> >at all (a service they refuse to implement) I'll have to abandon them
> >as a mail provider sooner rather than later.
>
> Me too, Jack, I've complained to Demon but they seem very reluctant to
> acknowledge the problem,

A problem that exists is one of valid emails getting blocked. I don't know
whether or not it would be possible to set up email on a per client basis.

As for individual choices, overall I guess it depends on a balance of how
much you care about the risk of loosing a valid email and how much volume of
email you have to deal with.  When my ISP looked into options, the
impression I got was that was the preference of the majority was to let
users filter. It certainly is my preference but I don't have 1,000s of
emails to look at.

Jom