"Jack Glendening" wrote in message
news
(Sorry about the extra 0). That explains better, I had thought from
what you had said that it was a pre-filtering so you never looked at the
filtered emails at all. I use spamassassin with heuristic rules and
Bayesian "learning" based on the spam/non-spam emails I've already
received (but I have it's black hole lists disabled) and for the last
month it's been 99.7% correct (1 false positive and 3 false negative),
but I still feel I have to scan every subject line just in case (the
filtered spam being directed to its own mailbox). And I still do
everything I can, such as munging, to keep it down since any spam at all
is an annoyance so the fewer I get the better, as much for my mental
peace of mind as for the actual work involved. I'm at 40 spams/day
which is tolerable, considering that I have 3 different mailboxes plus
the "catch all" mailbox from my domain name.

Those are all good methods and part of the mailarmory methodology as well.
Some people are irritated at 20 spams per week, but then they may only check
e-mail 2-3 times during that week. I worry more about customers possibly
missing an important e-mail, but then I also wonder about those that think
free e-mail accounts are good enough for e-commerce and important work.
Locally, people are finding the local cable provider a poor choice as they
are now hitting a 3MB message limit and 10MB account limit (bounces if
exceeded). Our account charges are based on an average size per month with
10MB allowed. The server fires a warning if 20MB is exceeded, but we don't
bounce anything. The largest attachment I've ever received is 30+MB, but it
helps to be on a high speed circuit as this doesn't work real well on
dail-up, especially if pair-gain is in the loop.

No one can legislate SPAM out of existence, the solution will be a
verification standard. Unverifiable messages just won't be delivered.

Back to soaring now,

Frank