On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Eric Thomas wrote:

> This will help of course, but unfortunately no spam filter is 100% accurate,
> so you will only reduce the frequency of blacklisting, not eliminate the
> problem.

Correct. The filterbox is meant to reduce some of the collateral damage
but no 'anti-spam' solution will solve the real problem (and the
definite solutions for the real problem are not accepted in most if not
all cultures).

> The only solution is for the anti-spam community to accept that
> spammers have outsmarted "secret" mailboxes by using harvested addresses as
> the message origin.

For this particular case, yes. The implicit message of these particular
listings ('unsolicited bounces' in spamcop-jargon, the main reason our
listserv-box gets listed) however do have some merit. I'm absolutely not
opposed to any measure that helps in reducing the 'backscatter', as long
as normal operations aren't hindered.

Cheers,

Xander
--
New systems generate new problems.