David W. Fenton wrote:
So I should be happy to receive and ignore a challenge from a spammer, and also be happy to have to respond to a challenge which stops spam....hmmm.....
You seem to think there's some kind of contradiction there.
'Spam is bad because we have to spend time dealing with it, time which I would otherwise use elsewhere'
'Email challenges are good, because we have to spend time dealing with them, time which I would otherwise use distracted by spam'
I don't see a great distinction.
My ISP does *not* filter spam. It offers SpamAssassin to end users who want to use it, but it does no filtering itself. I understand why -- they don't want to be blamed for false positives. I much prefer to control my spam filtering myself, so would not be pleased by an ISP that filtered spam if those filters were not configurable by me.
If you aren't getting 200 spam messages a day, then you're really not one of the people who would understand the extent of the problem. Of course, your ISP may very well be discarding 200 spam messages a day, of which who knows how many are actually legitimate messages that you really would like to receive. If that's the case, then email is already irretrievably broken for you.
So you're choosing to receive all spam, and then complaining that you get a lot of spam?
Yes, I opt for filtering. (Most high-street ISPs wouldn't even give you the choice.) And if you're of the mentality that you want to see every single email, to make sure that absolutley nothing gets rejected, then you cannot complain at the same time about having to deal with unnecessary junk. (I still get more crap through my door each morning than into my inboxes - and that includes my hotmail account, which only ever seems to wrongly-filter my phone bill.)
And if email is 'irretrievably broken' for me, then it is also for 99% of email users. But none of us have noticed any problem.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
