Re: Every spam is sacred
> IMHO, the best of both worlds is blocking the *completely* obvious
> spam (open relays, etc. like the DSBL does) and filtering the rest.
A message sent via these bad ISP is a "completely obvious spam"? I
would be happy to share this simplistic approach.
But people cannot always select by themselves their tools (employee in
a company... etc ; see the example below). Usually, they can at their
option use hotmail (woaw, what a recommendation) or yahoo. But it's a
A workaround for the problem this policy creates: at the contrary of
what you said, you rarely can say whether a mail is spam or not just
with an IP.
The best to me is filtering mail according to their content
only. Because I do not think possible to determine "completely obvious
mail" so easily, accurately (SPEWS seems more honnest in their goal,
not pretending that they'll harm only guilty ones). But it takes more
Last summer, I had to use AOL for a month. AOL at many regards could
be in list of bad ISP that do not care at all of spam (no answer by
abuse@aol... etc). What if I had to report a bug about debian?
Creating an account on yahoo instead of using debbugs.el in my
favorite mail reader? Working everyday on fencepost via ssh with a 56K
modem to avoid getting my mails refused because of my IP?
Not a native english speaker: