On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 22:36, Jim Ford wrote:

> But _does_ it really hurt them. They don't get any feedback - users that
> install spam filters wouldn't have responded to to the spam anyway, other
> than deleting it manually. The only difference is that the deletion process is
> automated by a spam filter. I reckon spammers don't really care about the
> users that install filters.

They get all the feedback they need in the form of reduced profits and
increased running costs. 

Users with enough technical ability to install filters wouldn't have
responded, but non-techy users who just got tired of hot teens and
viagra and managed to find their way to a filtered inbox are a definite
win, in that they will almost certainly start off using default
settings, which block more spam than just hot teens and viagra. Granny's
dislike of porn spam can have a direct effect on a cell phone spammer's

If spammers weren't bothered about filters we would never have seen a
spammer attempt to bypass filters, forge mua's, or damage dnsbl's with
litigation. I believe spews suffered a DoS over the weekend, sure sounds
like someone's bothered. Of course they're bothered, filtering hurts
them, and their attempts to bypass filters can hurt them too.

> Spamassassin's great and works like a charm for me, but we need to put the
> bite on spammers in some other way!

We need to put the bite on spammers in every way. We still need to send
abuse reports, submit hosts to blacklists etc, these are all good.
Educating and empowering ordinary users is even better, because two can
bite better than one, and if you educate a user well they will educate

Yorkshire Dave

Scanned by MailScanner at wot.no-ip.com

This SF.Net email is sponsored by: INetU
Attention Web Developers & Consultants: Become An INetU Hosting Partner.
Refer Dedicated Servers. We Manage Them. You Get 10% Monthly Commission!
INetU Dedicated Managed Hosting http://www.inetu.net/partner/index.php
Spamassassin-talk mailing list

Reply via email to