On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:58 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"jane" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

~On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:
~
~
~"Jane Ransom" wrote in message
...
~ In article , David
david.simp
~ writes
~
~ But just about all the return addresses are false Jane,
~
~ So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that
~ mail box?
~
~You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I
did
~not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances.
~
~Franz
~
~I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and
~it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet.
~
~

Well after a few days of using Mailwasher I've finally got all my
friends and contacts programmed in. Now I've set up a spreadsheet in
which I shall record, over 2 weeks, the number of spams received,
number correctly identified, and number missed (ie true and false
positives). Ditto good mail. I am actively bouncing spam and
blacklisting the apparent senders.

If it's a resounding success, I shall consider letting it delete
automatically and buying the real version. We shall see!

Please await progress report in 2 weeks!

I look forward to the statistics.

I am willing to place bets on the following:
(1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam
(2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many
spammers use false addresses.
(3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send
spam.

(4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her
ISP about her spamming, eventually.

In the meantime I have had two genuine messages tagged as spam by my
ISP, one understandably, the other not and I am starting to get one or
two spam messages untagged per day.
--
Martin