Hello Steve Lamb,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 18:00:20 -0800 GMT your local time,
which was Wednesday, February 16, 2000, 9:00:20 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 07:54:50PM -0500, Allie Martin wrote:
>> This method, though very effective except for the Nicks most
>> recent example where a spam message was indeed addressed directly to
>> him, doesn't seem to go down well with the others Steve. I'm wondering
>> why.
> It is because they don't see the direct cause and effect.
true , normally people will look at it the other way around but to get
rid of anything by sorting, this is the most efficient way.
>> Possibly it's because it entails an indirect way of achieving the
>> effect, and furthermore it entails creating other filters when a
>> single filter could be used instead.
> However there is no single filter that will catch all spam. As tracer
> said, a mere 5% of his spam matches the sender=receiver catagory. Reacting to
> spam sent is not an option since blocking addresses used is futile, those
> addresses will never be used again.
I had ONE duplicated one...
But note, the other 90% I already get rid off so its not 5% I want to
get rid off, its 50% of my remaining spam (g).
Best regards,
tracer
--
Using theBAT 1.41 Beta/3 with Windows 98
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed as : [email protected]
