On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 11:14:27 +0200 David Fokkema <dfokkema@ileos.nl> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Because we chose not to? Because we have objections in > > principle to people offloading their spam fighting effort to innocent > > correspondents? Because I have better things to do than to beg and > > plead for my answers to be heard by people who asked for help in the > > first place? > Then send your answer to the list. Sometimes correspondence is not appropriate to send through the list but is still relevant. For example when Alan Conner objected to PGP signatures I was looking through the signed messages and noticed one from Manoj had a bad signature. I double-checked to ensure the keys I had were the correct ones and even went so far as to retrieve them again from a keyserver. Still a bad signature. I sent a copy of the message to Manoj with an explanation of the behavior in case something was misconfigured on his(?) end. Certainly not something I want to bother the list with and quite appropriate to send directly. Not worth enough effort to hit reply on a C-R, however. > Getting tens of mails of spam a day and hitting `d' on them requires a > lot more brain cycles then (almost) blindly responding to a challenge. > But that is just my guess, or my opinion. Then install SA and spend a few minutes perusing the configuration options. I find SA quite effective with the Bayesian filters turned on and set to the default auto-learn limits. I also add in a Vipul's Razor check. About 15 minutes of work and I cut my spam load from 10-20 a day to 1-2 a week. Here's the kicker. I'm not annoying dozens of other people on an ongoing basis to do it. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. | -- Lenny Nero - Strange Days -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpzafJGj31oa.pgp
Description: PGP signature