On 2/25/09, Barry Shein <b...@world.std.com> wrote: > On February 26, 2009 at 09:14 ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) > wrote: > > Well... If you think theres no value in the AOL or other feedback > > loops and your network is clean enough without that, well then, dont > > sign up to it and then bitch when all you get for your boutique > > network with users who are by and large fellow geeks doesnt generate > > any actual spam at all. > > Hey, I didn't bitch, I didn't say it was valueless, I didn't say any > of this. Can't you make your point without amplifying and putting > words in my mouth? It sounds to me like you just want to vent. > > I suggested that probably 99% of the false positives I see could be > avoided by just waiting until there are two or more complaints from > the same source before firing it back as spam.
But aren't the spam messages sufficiently randomized these days to make it impossible to get *two* complaints about the same spam, since the messages are all uniquified with randomized strings in them? Matt
