(OT) Re: Mail servers changes (INFO)

From: Jerome Fine <jhfine_at_idirect.com>
Date: Thu Feb 24 22:02:32 2000

>John Wilson wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 09:42:28AM -0800, Chris Kennedy wrote:
> > 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.

Jerome Fine replies:

Ditto!!! Please put in whatever spam blocks you can for me as well!!

> 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
Received on Thu Feb 24 2000 - 22:02:32 GMT