On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:14:57 -0800, ahimsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ted Gavin wrote: >> AFAIK, the only "total prevention" for spam, at this point, involves >> only accepting mail from known, controlled, whitelisted addresses, or >> not having an e-mail address at all. And the first option still presents >> some element of risk. > >I guess you mean total prevention for receiving spam. Both methods that >you list prevent an individual from seeing spam. They do not prevent spam >from being sent and consuming bandwidth. Very true, and that is where the greater damages are done, IMNSHO. >If I don't see spam, does it mean it isn't there? :-) (if a tree falls in a >forest ... sorry, I couldn't resist!) Ah - a "forest cartel" member (tinfc) >To get serious for a moment, I just wanted to make sure we are all talking >about the same thing. To me, "preventing spam" means stopping spam before it >happens, not stopping my individual receipt of spam. In more realistic terms, >it means reduction, not total elimination. How true. That was a goal when writing RFC-3098. Make a document that those who have not spammed can read to maybe get some clue which would prevent them from doing that which makes spam. Ted _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
