Simon Byrnand said:
> The FTC (in the US) is already doing just that. They can't go after spam in
> general, but they *can* and do go after spam that hawks fraudulent products
> etc However I suspect that they're woefully understaffed for the job at
> hand :)
And the same will apply with
> >What bothers me is that they are proposing new restrictive legislation
> >that will be almost impossible to enforce, while ignoring the fact that at
> >least 50% of the spam is about fraudulent products and the products could
> >be prosecuted on their own merits. (Or lack of same.) In fact, I j
At 07:56 23/06/03 -0400, Jack Gostl wrote:
What bothers me is that they are proposing new restrictive legislation
that will be almost impossible to enforce, while ignoring the fact that at
least 50% of the spam is about fraudulent products and the products could
be prosecuted on their own merits.
> >> Now, if I may no longer reach my own SMTP server, I have to change SMTP
> >> server settings every time I am on the road again.
> >
> > Well you would be in the minority there, very few people have their own
> > mailserver using password authentication that they use from multiple
> > ISP's
Simon Byrnand wrote:
Now, if I may no longer reach my own SMTP server, I have to change SMTP
server settings every time I am on the road again.
Well you would be in the minority there, very few people have their own
mailserver using password authentication that they use from multiple
ISP's... mo
At 08:19 22/06/03 +0200, guenther wrote:
> I think what might eventually happen is that ISP's start blocking egress
> on port 25 from all but their own mailserver(s) which forces all the
> customers within their ip range to relay through their server. That way
> they can run something like spamass
> I think what might eventually happen is that ISP's start blocking egress
> on port 25 from all but their own mailserver(s) which forces all the
> customers within their ip range to relay through their server. That way
> they can run something like spamassassin on *outgoing* messages and, for
> e
> So, gentlemen, hat(s) off and on in ever increasing tempo.
Full ack! Although my results are not as good and a couple of SPAM still
slips through...
> I wonder what comes next. To my mind, attempts at legislation will prove
> useless. Technology will prove the savior.
Technology as the savi
> I wonder what comes next. To my mind, attempts at legislation will prove
> useless. Technology will prove the savior.
My opinion is that both are needed in the long run, and either one alone
will fail. Of course its necessary to use technology to catch spammers in
the act and track them down, bu
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:44:14PM +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:
> So, gentlemen, hat(s) off and on in ever increasing tempo.
Here, here and to the many subscribers to this list giving solid support!
Regards: Jim Ford
--
Spam poison - don't use! ---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <---
SA 2.60-CVS, Postfix 2.0.12, amavisd-new, site-wide rules.
Don't know whether it's posting on this particular list (I suspect so)
or on others. But the spam volume is growing at an enormous rate.
I'm deliberately publishing [EMAIL PROTECTED]; I can kill it dead
tomorrow, should I so wish. But t
11 matches
Mail list logo
