Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"jane" wrote in message ... 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. ~ I'll only be able to give you stats on (1) though - without taking a very careful look, I won't be able to identify who spams me twice. Yes, that one is a bind. I stopped looking in detail as soon as I noticed 3 bouncees coming back for more. There is a way (looking at the last email date in the blacklist.txt) but I'm not sure if I'll do it. Might do, though I suspect 2 weeks is too short a period for that particular question. I'm more interested in (4) do my received-at-server spam numbers drop at all. I only got 77 overnight and it's usually over a hundred, more at weekends, so it may already be working. We shall see. I look forward to the results. At present, I am hugely satisfied with the anti-spam service offered by my ISP. He automatically tags possible spam and moves them into a separate box. The stuff I see in my real mailbox is now only a minute percentage of the total spam directed at me. In the early days I studied the tagged and segregated junk to see if the ISP had misdirected any genuine mail. In more than 2000 taggees, I have found not one erroneously tagged item. I now have so much confidence in the system that I don't bother studying the junkbox any more, I just do a bulk delete once or twice a week. Franz |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Even chickens get a better life under new animal laws | United Kingdom | |||
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER | Ponds | |||
LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER | Ponds | |||
Monsanto Uses Canadian Taxpayer Money to Violate Foreign Laws Case highlights need for strong Biosaf | Gardening | |||
Messy laws | Gardening |