-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In <mid:5494997034.20021112031849@;freeuk.com>, Barry2 [B] wrote:'
B> The difference is that the rubbish isn't sent to me at all - I B> consider it a complete waste of bandwidth to transfer megabytes B> of data onto my PC just to then dump it in the bin !!! If it will end up saving on-line time and your time then why not? B> Time isn't the issue at all Ok. I didn't realize this. It certainly is for me. One of the terrible things about spam for me is that it gets in my way. If I can keep them getting in my way at a minimum without losing legitimate mail then I'll choose that route. - From your bandwidth wastage from downloading all those megabytes, it would seem that you get a lot of spam per day. Since I stopped using one of my addresses, spam isn't really a problem for me. However, I used to receive about 30/day. I'm seeing reports here of over 100/day. Wow!. That's a lot of time spent on the dispatcher screening each bunch of messages that come up. But you say that you have the time and this isn't a problem for you so I have no arguments there. B> As an example - scanning a download of 200 mails or so takes no B> more than a couple of minutes and the subsequent download time is B> much shorter for the lack of the Spam ! Most of those messages are spam then. Wow! The spamming is really getting out of hand. B> Again, just is a waste of bandwidth and to scan through such a B> folder would take longer than to go through the headers in the B> Mail Dispatcher Why? It can list the same headers as the dispatcher, i.e., name, sender, messages size. It contains less messages than the dispatcher list would, since all the known legitimate mail would have been filtered out? I don't read the messages when I scan them you know. B> ... not that it's the time angle I'm bothered about, but surely B> it's more tedious to go through a whole folder full of Spam just B> to weed out what you'd pick up in a matter of seconds before you B> downloaded ?? We're talking about accumulated time. It's a matter of scanning the folder *once* for the day. When things are even more streamlined and accurate, you'll feel the need to scan it only once every two days. This is very different from scanning *all* mail before it reaches your Inbox. The only way that I can agree that it's more efficient is if you receive close to or more spam than you do legitimate mail. B> I guess everyone has their own way of using TB! - and for me that B> is one of its great strengths - but I can assure you that B> pre-scanning the headers first isn't tedious in the slightest - You're accustomed to doing it. :) B> on a dial-up connection it can be more tedious just watching all B> that rubbish come down the phone line < lol > You aren't busy looking through the list in the dispatcher? It's not as easy to appreciate loss of productivity when one is busy. Loss of productivity is a lot more apparent and vivid when we sit waiting for things to happen. B> Each to their own Yes. B> - but the original question was about how to efficiently fight B> Spam .... the way we do it here there is ZERO spam on our systems B> and the only mail we get is the mail we *want* to get. As a Spam B> / Virus fighting methodology that takes some beating < lol > Indeed it does. I just question the efficiency of it. However, you've already stated that you have the time so my questioning this is moot in your case specifically. Perhaps not moot for others who are still looking for a solution and may consider doing it your way. - -- Allie C Martin \ TB! v1.62/Beta7 & WinXP Pro (SP1) List Moderator / PGP Key - http://pub-key.ac-martin.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Win32) - GPGshell v2.65 iD8DBQE90N/1V8nrYCsHF+IRAlKyAKCZ3sRAxJY5G7iqraxOUh1wro6TVgCg6U5Y nNR/Ho8Gr+3kEagojWSWwYI= =FOf2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
