[SOC] More on anti-spam

[Bill Cunningham]

Nigel, the spam I'm referring to has nothing to do with amateur radio and is
easily recognized for what it is.  My chief annoyance is when the ARRL touts
the relay as a service to members and continues to provide a service to the
spam senders -- and then says they don't have the expertise to solve
problem.

But you are quite right.  I can stop this for a modest investment, installed
on my computer.  I note this investment is approximately equal to
subscription cost.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Gunn G8IFF/KC8NHF" <nigel@ngunn.net>
To: <soc@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [SOC] More on anti-spam


> What is spam to you may be useful to somebody else. Why do you expect ARRL
> to use my money to filter your mail? You pay for the filter software and
do
> it on your computer.
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Nigel A. Gunn. 59 Beadlemead, Milton Keynes, MK6 4HF, England.
> Tel +44 (0)1908 604044 or 07774 478270 (mobile)
> e-mail nigel@ngunn.net   http://www.ngunn.net
> Amateur radio stations  G8IFF, M0NHF, KC8NHF
> Member of  AMSAT-NA  LM-1691, AMSAT-UK #182, ARRL,
>            Flying Pig #385, Dayton ARA #2128, Milton Keynes ARC
> Supporter of MK Lightning and Dayton Bombers Ice Hockey Teams
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Cunningham" <k4ksr@arrl.net>
> To: <soc@mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [SOC] More on anti-spam
>
>
> > I don't know, either.  The answer I received was to effect of "not worth
> the
> > cost of filtering here."  Well, if enough members were obnoxious, it
might
> > be worth their while.  I actually got several replies, one of which said
> > "Please don't forward your spam to webmaster.  It won't do any good."  I
> > replied that getting his attention was itself an improvement.
> >
> > They are fighting the problem, at least based on the crap I receive.
The
> > listed points of origin vary, but there are about 6 simple patterns that
> > would eliminate 90+% of this traffic.  I can't make compound rules with
> > Outlook Express.  I'm otherwise happy with Outlook or would switch to
> Eudora
> > and Spamnix.
> >
> > What really galls me is the continued advertizing of what a great
benefit
> > this service is when it has become a major pain.
> >
> > 73,
> > Bill C
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hank Kohl K8DD" <k8dd@arrl.net>
> > To: <soc@mailman.qth.net>
> > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 8:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: [SOC] More on anti-spam
> >
> >
> > > I'm still forwarding the group @arrl.net spam's to the ARRL webmaster
> > .....
> > > Just pick them out of the Spaminix directory .... Not sure if it's
doing
> > > any good .....
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SOC mailing list
> > > SOC@mailman.qth.net
> > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/soc
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SOC mailing list
> > SOC@mailman.qth.net
> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/soc
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> SOC mailing list
> SOC@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/soc