On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:48:27PM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 07:17:09PM -0700, Bruce J.A. Nourish wrote:
> > So, in conclusion, I agree entirely with you, but everyone else enjoys
> > bieng spammed. 
> 
> No, but it's a fact of life that you're going to need end-system tools
> to filter spam you do receive, regardless of measures taken further up
> the tree for a list - especially when such measures can be error-prone
> and require manual babysitting.

Granted, that if you use public mailing lists, you will, eventually get
spammed. But we can and should hobble that process by using simple
defensive techniques that generally involve running sed (or perl or
ruby) over the generated archive pages.

> > Your best hope is to use extra addresses as you yourself are now doing.
> 
> Perhaps in combination with address-specific training or declarative
> rules about where mail will be accepted from (only from the relevant
> listserver? only if it is In-Reply-To: a post earlier in a known
> thread? etc.)

Many people (including myself, for a few more weeks) are stuck with
lame hosting providers that only allow you to filter on header text.
(Granted, I could use fetchmail and filter locally, but then I couldn't
use their IMAP services).

On the 23rd, I'm switching to SDF, and then I will play with the things
you suggest.
-- 
Bruce J.A. Nourish <bjan+public@bjan.net> http://bjan.freeshell.org