Pete, et al -- ...and then Pete Hanson said... % % At 06/09/2002 10:30, Bryan Hoover wrote: % >David T-G wrote: % >Your point is taken, in that, there will always be a percentage of ISP % >who are not conscientious enough to have an opinion one way or the % >other, and so need a nudge in the right direction. % > % >I suppose lately, I've had so much spam on the brain, I can't imagine % >anyone, let alone an ISP admin, not having an opinion on it. % % I think the battle of trying to get ISPs to police themselves is a lost one. Even with conscientious ISPs, the vast majority of spam complaints come from people who don't have a clue as to how to read email headers. They just complain to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where somewhere.com is the address listed in the From: header. And the concept of full headers is a complete mystery to many as well. So, the complaints they receive most likely have nothing to do with their systems.
Fair enough, and I don't dispute your evaluation of many users. That's one good thing about spamcop, though; yes, it's possible to screw up (even I have accidentally submitted and sent reports for non-spam), but at least the addresses that get pulled out are for the right places. If I were an ISP I'd be inclined to ignore lots of the mail to abuse@ but I'd at least look at the spamcop mails. Or am I lost in my own little utopia again? % % Pete `-_-' TIA & HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
msg06067/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
