Re: Free Newserver?

Blinky the Shark <no.spam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
[deleted]

No, you aren't misinterpreting it. Munging avoids the problem instead of
effectively dealing with the problem.

The real problem is that your email provider is not giving you enough
control over what gets rejected at SMTP time. All good spam antispam
measures must do a few things to be considered effective in the real
world:

1) Minimize the number of false-positives generated. Any anti-spam
measure is not supposed to treat legitimate email as spam.

2) Minimize the number of false-negatives generated. Any anti-spam
measure is not supposed to treat spam as legitimate email.

3) Never place stumbling blocks in the way of users. No anti-spam
measure should ever require additional effort on the part of the
sender.

Munging email addresses in email and news posts fails on all three
points soundly.

1) Munging considers all email spam regardless of content or source.

2) Munging assumes anybody able to replace an email address is not a
spammer.

3) Munging is a potentially insurmountable stumbling block for end
users, especially if there is no way to unmunge the address in
question.

So, the correct solution to the problem you're trying to solve? Shop for
email service provider that gives you control over what content and
sources you're willing to accept from at SMTP time. Undesirable
content gets rejected at the mail server, you get everything else.

Bullshit. The best solution prevents the bandwidth costs of spam, and
since at least properly configured software won't even *try* to send to
TLD invalid, that's a better solution than begging for spam and then
filtering it once the bandwidth is already wasted. And *bouncing* spam
(which I know you didn't specifically mention) is the worst because it
doubles the wasted bandwidth and and sends mail to innocent pilfered
addresses.

Before using the B-word (and the other b-word), perhaps you could at
least try to understand what's being said. Your 'solution' isn't one for
the problem Paul is talking about.

That you and I both use .invalid doesn't mean that Paul is talking BS.
It just means that he's taking another approach. Both his text and his
From: header make that blatantly clear.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows XP starts slow.
    ... >wish to persuade to your point of view. ... >spam is a distraction and a nuisance and not a priority in any campaign to ... >If you wish to help users to avoid virus infection do so so. ... As soon as munging becomes no longer necessary (Dear God, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • Re: Using your email address posted as a link on Usenet
    ... Any anti-spam ... measure is not supposed to treat legitimate email as spam. ... Never place stumbling blocks in the way of users. ... Munging considers all email spam regardless of content or source. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • RE: I posted the incorrect e-mail address - now what do I do?
    ... service provider that does not give you control over what messages get ... measure is not supposed to treat legitimate email as spam. ... Munging considers all email spam regardless of content or source. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Free Newserver?
    ... in the "Sender Address" section: ... Any anti-spam ... measure is not supposed to treat legitimate email as spam. ... Munging email addresses in email and news posts fails on all three ...
    (news.software.readers)
  • Re: Free Newserver?
    ... in the "Sender Address" section: ... measure is not supposed to treat legitimate email as spam. ... Munging email addresses in email and news posts fails on all three ... filtering it once the bandwidth is already wasted. ...
    (news.software.readers)