On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:29:00 -0500 Rob McEwen <r...@invaluement.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless, it is a shame to have to shift more of the burden onto > spam filters to do more work (some of which requires MORE latency) - > in order to partly mitigate Google's failure to prevent/correct the > abuse. Yes, I agree. On the other hand, IMO a spam filter should block messages that point to a taken-down shortened URL. Although such messages may not be downright dangerous, they are still annoying and are still spam. There's no way of avoiding the work. Regards, Dianne.
