From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <1c6.12acb2f1.2cff7e52@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 12:58:42 EST
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: LF: Spam, viruses, etc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: <owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org

In a message dated 12/3/03 6:27:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
dsergeant@btinternet.com writes:

> Thanks to blacksheep using 
>  SpamAssasin I guess it does reduce the spam on this list enormously 
>  from what it could be, and in fact it is a very small percentage of 
>  the spam received here.
>  
>  However it is worth saying that of the various email reflectors I 
>  subscribe to without exception they either operate a 'members only 
>  may post' policy or one of moderating members on their first posting. 
>  Everybody accepts this policy without complaints. This list seems to 
>  be the only one which is totally open.

This is the essence of the matter.  Between the existing Spam Assassin filter 
and a members-only posting policy--an utterly SIMPLE matter to implement in 
most cases, even simpler than setting up a spam filter--we wouldn't be having 
these discussions about spam at all!

Those of us complaining about spam *do* know about the various filters out 
there, and most of us use them on e-mail accounts where we can do.  But please 
bear in mind two points:  there are NONE which are 100% effective, and some of 
us have to keep various e-mail accounts sufficiently open that we don't risk 
losing legitimate mail which may have a few spam-like traits.  The "final 
filter" is always the eye-brain-hand system, and it can become error prone after 
dealing with one or two hundred junk mails a day.

When you're in that boat, believe me, any reduction in spam would be welcome, 
especially when it is SO EASY to do.

Is there anyone on the list for whom it would be a serious inconvenience to 
have a little less spam to intercept????

John