On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 at 10:25:05, Colin Parsons wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
>Hi there,
>
>Anyone on BT connections, particularly BT Yahoo broadband, should check it's
>spam filter. I just did and found 14 QL list messages. The other week when
>there was "Reverse engineering" in the subject, I found 25 messges blocked!!
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Colin
>
>
>Dilwyn Jones wrote:
>
>...
>> There is an issue in particular with NTL which is causing havoc.
>> The root cause is spam, and many ISPs inept efforts at pre-filtering.
>>
>> I remember chaos at Demon a few years ago, when someone decided to put
>> them on a blacklist because one of their customers had an open relay.
>>
>> My ISP does absolutely nothing other than spend £100,00 plus to cope
>> with the spam traffic. That is fine by me - I would rather be in
>> control of my own filters.
>
>Consider that the £100,00[0]+ has to come from somewhere: it'll end up
>coming from you in terms of costing you more to access their system - spam
>defence must form part of the cost you have to pay your ISP for using their
>systems and their providing you with email facilities.
Nope - I don't want _any_ defence. I want to control my own spam.
There is no defence whatsoever at my ISP, other than obvious mail
relays, DOS attacks and the like, and that is the way I want it to
stay. The £100,000 was spent not for defences, but for servers to
ensure _all_ mail gets through. This is quite the reverse of defence -
it is a very wide open door.
My current ploy of searching the internet for literal references to my
email address, and getting them removed seems to work very well.
With my own filters this end (and some of them are header filters prior
to collecting the message) I get very very little spam - maybe 40 a day.
All my spam is actually bounced back with a header that looks as if my
address doesn't exist. OK I guess most spammers do not parse the
returns, but at least those who do won't bother again.
Oh yes - I also add my own filters at the ISP end. These ones simply
get binned.
.. and I try never to include a harvestable email in the body of the
message and sig. I find some archived usenet groups, for instance,
store the entire message in full, including sig. Ludicrous.
All 'email' links to anyone in the sites I run are cgi only. The email
is stored locally on disk, and never published. This is quite nice as
they cgi form is often Googled - and usable, but not to a robot.
<snip>
Tony
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
tony@<surname>.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk
Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
