At 09:47 AM 5/26/97 +0100, Chris Bidmead wrote:
[snip]
The "subscribers only" idea sounds reasonable (except that smart
spammers will then subscribe, won't they?)
"smart spammers???" Isn't that an oxymoron? :-)
Most (all?) spammers won't subscribe to post spam, since they don't
want to reveal a replyable e-mail address. (And if subscriptions are
confirmed first, it must be replyable.) Plus, they're just sending
to a huge list of addresses, unaware (and uncaring) of what's on the
other end, and won't bother with bounces.
Whether that gets
implemented is up to the moderator.
Yep, although he's really an "owner" rather than a "moderator" (since
he doesn't do editorial functions). If there were a vote, I'd vote for
subscription-required-to-post (although I do understand there's an
argument the other way, I don't really buy it; anyone who posts here
ought to stick around long enough to read the responses); the list
address is out in the spammers' lists now, and it's only going to get worse.
Meanwhile, why not regard the
odd spam collected here as a valuable resource, raw material for
your own experiments in despamming?
There's at least one legitimate mailing list you can subscribe to to
get all the samples you want (I forget its name right now -- no, I
don't mean SPAM-L, though you can find samples there as well); hence,
I don't think we need them here.
Cheers,
Stan