Re: Spam spam spam spam spam

[Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>]

Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com> writes:
>
>> [ ... ]
>
> I think by using collaborative measures, you can probably come up with
> something that will reduce the spam problem back to a bearable level.
> Spamassassin/Razor/Spamcop looks like they're having a pretty good
> success rate.

I'll try those again.  I had problems in the past, but that was a while
ago, and now appears the problems are being solved.  Since you say that
they're working well, it would be nice if I could use them in lieu of
TMDA.


>> One of the philosophies behind TMDA (blacklist by default, whitelist
>> only as a result of some sort of authentication) seems to be a good
>> basis for some usable spam protection.  [ ... ]
>
> I use this methodology on Gmane (for allowing posting through the
> news-to-mail interface), but there the potential for annoyance is so
> much higher.  If a spam message goes through there, it'll annoy
> (potentially) thousands of people.  If a spam message goes through to
> me, it'll annoy one single person.

Well, for an individual, the annoyance factor for all the senders might
indeed be higher than that of the single recipient ... but my situation
is a little different: I run a small ISP with a number of users, and so
the recipient annoyance factor is higher, per unit email delivery to
recipients on my site.


> I've gone through the white-list process with a couple of people, and
> I've been annoyed.  Not annoyed enough to say something (because I
> sympathize), but annoyed nevertheless.

I'm annoyed also with this whitelisting ... but like you, not annoyed
enough to complain, because I do sympathize.  I think that this small
level of annoyance is a worthwhile price to pay for major spam
reduction.

But as you mentioned above, SpamAssassin/Razor/Spamcop seem to be
working well these days, and so I'm going to revisit these solutions
before completely embracing TMDA.


-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz@asfast.com