Tim:
> If I had to check up on it, I don't consider it trustworthy.
Dave Ihnat:
Again I'll say--no matter how good any anti-spam software is,
there
will ALWAYS be false positives. So on that basis, you don't like any
of it?
If I have to double-check, what's the point of it? Seriously! How
different is that than just hitting delete on the way through reading
your mail?
I think I've been doing internet email for about a dozen years, now,
can't say I've ever found anti-spam convenient.
As a result, I have functional E-Mail, and am not afraid to keep the
sameaddress for, literally, decades. Can you say the same?:
> All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no
point
> trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
> public lists.
Ah; didn't think so.
That's my one, and only, anti-spam handler that I've used for the last
several years. This mailing list gets a special address. And, for what
it's worth, it's not just an anti-spam measure. I really do not desire
private messages from strangers. The warning is upfront about it.
My personal mail, which I think I've had for several years after getting
my own domain has no anti-spam handling, and needs none. And I have
another address that I have used on mailing lists, and that does get
spam, hence why I joined this list differently. But after taking these
measures, I only get about one spam a day.
On the other hand, if I used a spamable address on this mailing list, I
would need to use anti-spam software. And every anti-spam solution that
I've ever tried I consider to be utter crap and a pain to have to
constantly manage. It's *never* set and forget.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27 UTC 2013 x86_64
All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.
George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.