From: Tony Williams 

I actually agree with just about everything you wrote there. Maybe I didn't
explain our setup well enough. We use software which spots dubious email
and edits the subject so that instead of seeing "MAKE $$$ WITH A
LARGER..." I see "[SPAM] MAKE $$$ etc."

All I have to do is set up a filter to look for messages having subjects
beginning with "[SPAM]" and send them to a separate folder. A
quick visual check of the subjects and senders in that folder lets me pick
out the false-positives and I can delete the rest unread or forward them to
SpamCop.

I am very wary of whitelists though. I prefer the default to be to allow
mail through unless it's blocked. With the amount of email address changing
that goes on maintaining a whitelist could be quite a chore.

--
Tony

Geo. wrote:
> "Tony Williams"  wrote in message
> news:3dfc2706{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Why get an unfiltered account when I can pay my ISP to do the filtering
>>for me - they'll almost certainly do a better job of it.
>
>
> Because it gives you control of how filtering is done? If all you want the
> ISP to do is tag emails instead of bouncing them so they don't fill your
> mailbox then you are better off doing it yourself where you control what and
> how things get tagged. Outlook has mail rules that are ideal for this. In
> fact you should do it backwards, tag mail from people you DO know and file
> the rest in the spam folder then just go thru those once a week or so
> looking for valid emails and discarding the rest.
>
>
>>Yes, I could set up custom software and filters but the ISP handles mail
>>for all its users so it spot a spammer who sends mail to one user and
>>set up a filter for everyone else before they even get hit.
>
>
> True but it's a losing battle. The way to make effective mail filters is the
> same technique you use to firewall something, lock everything out then start
> allowing things you want in. ISP's can't do that because what one customer
> want's another doesn't want.
>
>
>>The many private blacklists are where we're at now, and it is difficult
>>for people to get off them.
>
>
> I like that.
>
>
>>Putting an IP into a blacklist is only half
>>the story because spammers change addresses all the time and some poor
>>sod is going to inherit their blacklisted address.
>
>
> A blacklist is not about blocking a spammer, it's about blocking sections of
> the internet that are known to be friendly to spam and it's up to the people
> who own those addresses to change that. A blacklist is a motivator to get
> ISP's to clean up their act.
>
>
>>An authoritative
>>blacklist could reduce the collateral damage by delisting addresses when
>>the spammer has moved on. Like I said, I don't think it'll happen.
>
>
> RBL's are not meant to do anything to the spammer, they are meant to
> motivate the spam friendly ISP. The problem is the spammers are willing to
> pay a lot of money for access and some ISP's can't resist, they think
> allowing the spammer on is a good idea. By treating this like it was
> radioactive waste and marking the addresses the spammers use as
> "contaminated" it increases the cost to the spam friendly
ISP in the hopes
> they will realize it's not profitable.
>
> When dealing with Ferangi, taking the profit out of it is the only way to
> motivate them. The more difficult it is to get off the blacklists the more
> expensive the cleanup..
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4