From: "Geo." 

"Tony Williams"  wrote in message
news:3dfb8a09$1{at}w3.nls.net...

> Exactly. My preference would be for a two-level system, with automatic
> tagging of emails which look like spam (we use this at work and it's
> surprisingly accurate), followed by blocking if the spam doesn't stop.

Tagging emails is a great test of the filters abilities but it's not much
of a solution to anything. The problem is there is a limited amount of disk
space allocated to each mailbox and when you are talking about a mail
server of any size the amount of disk sucked up by spam is a staggering
amount. At a guess, for every 10,000 users (average folk some careful with
their address and some not) receive about 100+mb of spam a day.

Tagging emails does nothing to conserve this space and provides no
deterrent for spammers or spam friendly ISP's.

A lot of people say you can't pass laws to control spam because it's a
world wide network (I agree with this assesment). Others say you can't
filter spam because spam can be made to look like valid email (I agree with
this assesment as well). That leaves one solution, it's up to all netizens
to stop communicating with sections of the internet that allow spamming.
Realistically that's the only solution I see that has a possibility of
limited success.

Geo.

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