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