Yes, I'd go for filtering and tagging. The tag would allow the offending posts to be easier to spot, and easier to apply local rules to. I assume that my ISP can maintain a better filter than I can, and that they will be more willing to keep up with spammer's newest techniques for getting around filters. But I'd like to be making the final choices.
Lyle D. Gunderson wrote: >On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:10:13 -0700, Lehnert Riegel ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is alleged to have written: >> >(snip) > >>My concern with all such "upstream filtering" is two-fold. >> - Will I really know and fully understand what they are doing? >> - How conscientious and adept will they be? (After all, broad brushes >>cover more surface in less time with fewer people.) >> >>In other words, I don't trust them (or others either) to "do my >>thinking for me." Your mileage may vary. > >You have a good point. >> >>So, is there an easy solution to the spam problem? (By the way, I >>certainly agree it IS a problem.) Well, many problems seem to defy EASY >>solution -- maybe spam is one more on that list. >> >One variant of ISP filtering is tagging. I've never seen it in operation, >but I gather that the ISP does some elaborate filtering, and tags email >suspected of being spam-- probably in the subject or headers. So, you can >manually process your email, perhaps skipping over what has been tagged, >or implement a very simple filter to shove all the spam-tagged email into >a cesspool folder you can dig around in if you are so inclined. > >I think that would be a sort of "trust but verify" solution I could live >with. > >--Lyle ___________________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe send a mail message with a SUBJECT line of "unsubscribe" to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
