24 Feb
2000
24 Feb
'00
2:02 p.m.
John Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:42:28AM -0800, Chris
Kennedy wrote:
Jerome Fine replies:
Ditto!!! Please put in whatever spam blocks you can for me as well!!
Interestingly, the opinion was that it's okay
to filter *on behalf
of the user*, i.e., if the *user* tells us to filter the mail (or
constructs their own filters) then we're off the hook,
OK then! Jay -- as a
user of this list, I request that you go all-out and
put in whatever spam blocks you can. What happened to the good old days when this crap only
came by snail mail and
cost nothing!
And cost the advertiser big dollars just for the postage. Now that is what I
call an effective filter. In addition, there should be a requirement for reasonable
SUBJECT/DATE/FROM/TO portions of every e-mail and any mass spam
could easily be checked to see how many (almost) identical messages are being
sent if the number of messages with the same "TO:" are being found - especially
if the "TO:" is not a valid address to respond to.
Finally, I have asked this question in the past. Will every message that includes
an attachment have the attachment checked for a virus? In many case, I am
loathe to open an attached file if I don't know the person who has sent the
e-mail. On some rare occasions, even Netscape seems to send the e-mail
as an attachment even though it was not expected.
Sincerely yours,
Jerome Fine