On Wed, 09 Apr 1997 17:27:19 -0700,
Roy Rapoport <rsr(_at_)shadowfx(_dot_)ide(_dot_)com> wrote:
On April 9, 1997, Robert Nicholson <steffi2(_at_)DGS(_dot_)dgsys(_dot_)com>
said:
Please define the rules you use to identify spam.
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that :).
<...>
However, if I tell you what these patterns are and you're a
spammer (or a spammer is listening), you/they can modify the way
you spam and get around my patterns.
Which means that basically I won't reveal my spam filters to
anyone who I don't personally know is not a spammer.
An equally valid rationale is that it's desirable that people use
their own unique patterns for identifying spam. If some kind of
pseudo-standard emerges, all the spammer has to do is figure out a way
to get around what the standard dictates. If everyone uses different
patterns, basically the spammer will have to assume that whatever he
comes up with will bounce 50% of the time.
Also, that means you don't have to say
Sorry.
:-) Hope this helps,
/* era */
--
Defin-i-t-e-ly. Sep-a-r-a-te. Gram-m-a-r. <http://www.iki.fi/~era/>
* Enjoy receiving spam? Register at <http://www.iki.fi/~era/spam.html>