(...)
Jim Muth wrote:
(248 junkers arrived since 11:30pm last evening.) .........maybe I'll (...) On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Paul N. Lee wrote of Earthlink's spam blocker: In that way you will never have to download the junk-email at all.
You must know that the filters aren't that reliable. They begin with a bunch of sites that are basically avowed spammers. My address is about as old as Jim's, I post on USENET without a munged address, and yet my spam load is about a fifth. The source of the difference is that my posts to nanas [NG shorthand] are declining in favour of carefully looking at the headers for the offender's site and notifying the postmaster at that site (forwarding complete headers). (Some people would tell you that abuse@ that site is the person to tell, but I don't think it makes a lot of difference). No better way is to get on the more important cut-lists, than to let a spammer know that you report and that your reports get contracts cancelled (especially if they're not alone). ...which reminds me of imagelinkusa.net They seem to hav a Master Of Business Administration at their helpdesk, so I should check out the Mail Abuse Prevention System to see if they're already listed, and if they are then see if MY helpdesk has any idea how we might use the real-time black-hole list. The discussion group in the hierarchy is news:/news.admin.net-abuse.email I'm dead set against letting spammers chase ME around. If I get tired of it, then I drop the internet connection (if not the computer) for a while longer than usual, but the address won't change if I hav anything to say about it, and all I hav to say about that is that hiding your e-mail address doesn't work forever, and running (changing) it doesn't work for long.