SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Re: DSPAM vs SpamAssassin FYI
- To: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Re: DSPAM vs SpamAssassin FYI
- From: mlh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:56:32 +1100
- User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:55:47AM +1100, Mary Gardiner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004, mlh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > As unfortunate as it is, I think the only way to combat spam is to
> > make it expensive to send by default.
> Interesting thing to advocate on a high volume mailing list of (almost
> entirely) legitmate mail. Of course the figures you propose would
> probably be affordable by SLUG and similar organisations, but not by all
> providers of community mailing lists.
That's why I said by default. I think exemptions would be made
almost as a matter of course; certainly for solicited mail such
as mailing list mail. btw, Dave Farber the interesting-people
mailing list guy had this objection too. He's got 10,000 recipients
so it's a serious problem for him.
I've left alone the issue of who decides and who imposes the cost.
Perhaps these are too intractable and we're stuck with spam forever.
> Of course, with major email providers beginning to shift to blocking
> *all* list mail by default unless specifically whitelisted, the burden
Is this happening now?
> of running or belonging to a mailing list may soon be too high to
> justify. Pity.