spammers?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jim Dumas !mindspring.com said:

Alice Faber said:

I'd flip it around and say that you care less about corresponding with folks than about not
getting spam.

True. "Don't bother me unless you're serious." That's the net effect.

And that's life in a spam-burdened world.

Quoted message said:

Mind you, I have a whole set of procmail filters on my mail server, as well as SpamAssassin, and
the Junk filters in Eudora. I also have a set of files I check for false positives, mostly
caused by folks who send email in HTML format. I'm accepting the burden of making my email
usable, not foisting it off on others.

I decided I was wasting too much of my time looking at spam email headers and writing rules to
catch this moving target. Earthlink has simplified my life with challenge-response. As spam
continues to grow, it will consume your free time with all the maintenance your layered filters
require. But if this is an educational exercise, then that's wonderful. But I've concluded that
until some change is made in email header tracability, (verified originator ID for example), then
it's useless to chase spammers.

Now that I have SpamAssassin configured, I'd estimate I spend less than 2 minutes per day worrying
about this. When it was procmail alone, yeah, it took a bit of fooling around, but SpamAssassin has
rendered all that superfluous.

--
AF

Alice Faber said:

Now that I have SpamAssassin configured, I'd estimate I spend less than 2 minutes per day worrying
about this. When it was procmail alone, yeah, it took a bit of fooling around, but SpamAssassin
has rendered all that superfluous.

I still have SpamAssassin loaded on this linux box (mailfilter and others as well). But have decided
the Earthlink approach is better. Let my ISP deal with it and give me the ones that pass the tests.
My maintanence time is 0 now. If you want to be a sys admin, then that's wonderful. But I'd rather
spend my time on other things.

So for the end-user, the Earthlink system works fine,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

In article <[email hidden]>,

Jim Dumas !mindspring.com said:

Alice Faber said:

Now that I have SpamAssassin configured, I'd estimate I spend less than 2 minutes per day
worrying about this. When it was procmail alone, yeah, it took a bit of fooling around, but
SpamAssassin has rendered all that superfluous.

I still have SpamAssassin loaded on this linux box (mailfilter and others as well). But have
decided the Earthlink approach is better. Let my ISP deal with it and give me the ones that pass
the tests. My maintanence time is 0 now. If you want to be a sys admin, then that's wonderful. But
I'd rather spend my time on other things.

At panix, SpamAssassin *is* on the server. My goal is to keep spam from being downloaded to my
computer without inconveniencing actual correspondents. That's my choice; some of my friends are
happy to "just hit "d"". So I see no reason to create any extra burden for people who've made
different choices.

--
AF

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:21:17 GMT, Jim Dumas

!mindspring.com said:

Alice Faber said:

Now that I have SpamAssassin configured, I'd estimate I spend less than 2 minutes per day
worrying about this. When it was procmail alone, yeah, it took a bit of fooling around, but
SpamAssassin has rendered all that superfluous.

I still have SpamAssassin loaded on this linux box (mailfilter and others as well). But have
decided the Earthlink approach is better. Let my ISP deal with it and give me the ones that pass
the tests. My maintanence time is 0 now. If you want to be a sys admin, then that's wonderful. But
I'd rather spend my time on other things.

So for the end-user, the Earthlink system works fine,

I use an ISP filter plus others. The problem is with high speed computing where the spammers can try
many combinations and broadcast. This increases the traffic greatly but a few of these shotgun
things get through. Greedy abusive people can use technology to their advantage. People that do not
have to work for a living can write virus and hack routines that exploit the present systems. The
very things that are used to gather business data are found by hackers and used. I see that Bill
Gates is a bit upset. Good. Warning were available years ago. Guy

Alice Faber said:

At panix, SpamAssassin is on the server. My goal is to keep spam from being downloaded to my
computer without inconveniencing actual correspondents. That's my choice; some of my friends are
happy to "just hit "d"". So I see no reason to create any extra burden for people who've made
different choices.

That's fine. But any two-way conversation requires a response. So your system still requires a test
for a human sender. You've decided to leave this to the end-user. The test has been done by
Earthlink for me.

So I'll stick with Earthlink,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

3 Feb 2004 17:08:25 GMT said:

Wes Groleau wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mistakenly assume I'm as stupid as the spammer.

Quoted message said:

I assume nothing. You assume that they are too dumb to understand that your countermeasures
indicate that they should stop sending _you_.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone want to do a controlled study?

Quoted message said:

The fact that we're all still spammed to death no matter all your ingenious schemes and thoughts
might make that study very superfluous.

imo, the spammers who send out these new spam messages to many (all?) of the newsgroups NEVER read
any responses to their spam post(s)

so replying to those mass spam postings is a total waste of time

instead, write to your Federal representatives (House and Senate if you are in the USA)

bill

Jim Dumas said:

I decided I was wasting too much of my time looking at spam email headers and writing rules to
catch this moving target. Earthlink has simplified my life with challenge-response. As spam
continues to grow, it will consume your free time with all the maintenance your layered filters
require. But

I can't speak for anyone else, but _statistical_filters_ have "simplified my life." I almost never
look at headers. When I get a false positive or false negative, I tell the program it was wrong. It
scans the message again and rewrites the "rules" automagically.

Haven't had a false classification in ages, though.

Only time I look at headers is when I see a subject line that I think is worth notifying legal
authorities over.

I use challenge-response only for messages over a certain size limit. (And that has only happened
once in months because a message that big is almost certainly dumped by the virus recipes.)

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:59:28 GMT, Jim Dumas

!mindspring.com said:

Wes Groleau said:

Problem with challenge-response is that it magnifies the abuse of the network. Spam and virus
loads down the wires. Response queries either dump on the poor guy whose address was picked by
the virus, or generate a load of bounce messages when a spammer has used a non-existent address.

Far better to use methods that discard the stuff.

Only if you know it's 100% spam.

The Earthlink BrightMail filter removes known spam first. Then new contacts are given a chance to
start a two way dialogue by the challenge post. This is exactly what we do in life, try to start a
two way conversation.

If the challenge goes unanswered, then nobody is home and it must be spam. The challenge is less
than 1 KB and is just one network packet. This is peanuts relative to DVD/CDROM/music downloads
going on all the time. So it's the price of starting a conversation with an unknown person. It has
to be done to make 100% sure it's not spam.

I thought it was wasteful of bandwidth when I first started to use it last June. But I've changed
my mind, as it's very effective at testing for a human at the sending end. The response is a
necessary requirement to start a two way dialogue. So let's automate it.

It works and it's simple. And I get my share of bandwidth as well,

I don't know how many of you are on broadband. So maybe earthlink works well that way. But for dial-
up, I had it briefly when my local ISP was bought by them, but couldn't wait to get it off my
computer. I now have another local ISP for 10 bucks a month less than earthlink, and I am happy with
it. My ISP e-mail never gets any spam. I have only used it for a very few select people. My main
mail acct., that I have used for 7 years now, is a yahoo acct. As I have yet to find a workable web
based spam filter app, I just use the freebie yahoo filters. So when I check my e-mail first thing,
I may find 150 spams, but they are all directed to my bulk mail filter. One click, Empty Bulk, and
pfft. gone forever. I have 100 blocked addys, and 15 general filters to use for free. When I get
motivated, I am going to redo my filters, and knock that bulk mail folder down to a minimal amount.
I have *never* gotten any of the latest worms, and e-mail virii. Of course I do a couple of thing to
minimize my odds on that too. Outlook isn't even allowed on my computer. My e-mail is mudged on
Usenet, and I never open anything foolish. JMO.

Sleepy

----------------------------------------------------
If you don't disagree with me, how will I know I'm right?
----------------------------------------------------

Sleepyman said:

I don't know how many of you are on broadband. So maybe earthlink works well that way. But for dial-
up, I had it briefly when my local ISP was bought by them, but couldn't wait to get it off my
computer. I now have another local ISP for 10 bucks a month less than earthlink, and I am happy
with it. My ISP e-mail never gets any spam. I have only used it for a very few select people. My
main mail acct., that I have used for 7 years now, is a yahoo acct. As I have yet to find a
workable web based spam filter app, I just use the freebie yahoo filters. So when I check my e-mail
first thing, I may find 150 spams, but they are all directed to my bulk mail filter. One click,
Empty Bulk, and pfft. gone forever. I have 100 blocked addys, and 15 general filters to use for
free. When I get motivated, I am going to redo my filters, and knock that bulk mail folder down to
a minimal amount. I have *never* gotten any of the latest worms, and e-mail virii. Of course I do a
couple of thing to minimize my odds on that too. Outlook isn't even allowed on my computer. My e-
mail is mudged on Usenet, and I never open anything foolish. JMO.

Sleepy

And a couple of things I forgot. I know how to use IRC safely, I use proxies in my browser when I
feel it necessary. I don't use ICQ, AIM, Yahoo messeger, or the rest of the IM apps. I used to use
them, but once the blackhats started messing with them, adios. I keep my AV definitions updated,
plus I run my AV every night while "sleeping" I use Windows Update, whenever it needs it, and I run
Spybot S&D daily too. I clean my cache very regularly, set my history file to save 1day only, and I
have applications to dump cookies that I don't want. Msconfig only allows the startup apps that I
feel necessary to run. And it all runs automaticly in the background using minimal resources. But
thats just me.

Sleepy

----------------------------------------------------
If you don't disagree with me, how will I know I'm right?
----------------------------------------------------

Wes Groleau said:

I use challenge-response only for messages over a certain size limit.

Then you still don't know if the addresses, that passed your filters, are valid. You must challenge
them to find out if they are real. You may save a few challenges with spam filters, but eventually
all roads lead to Rome and a challenge must be sent.

So what bandwidth are we really wasting?
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:35:51 -0600, Guy <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Jim Dumas !mindspring.com said:

Alice Faber wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

People that do not have to work for a living can write virus and hack routines that exploit the
present systems.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Guy

That is not necessarily the case. Now is it? I think you might find the reverse could be true.

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Wes Groleau said:

Jim Dumas said:

I decided I was wasting too much of my time looking at spam email headers and writing rules to
catch this moving target. Earthlink has simplified my life with challenge-response. As spam
continues to grow, it will consume your free time with all the maintenance your layered filters
require. But

Quoted message said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but _statistical_filters_ have "simplified my life." I almost never
look at headers. When I get a false positive or false negative, I tell the program it was wrong. It
scans the message again and rewrites the "rules" automagically.

Quoted message said:

Haven't had a false classification in ages, though.

Quoted message said:

Only time I look at headers is when I see a subject line that I think is worth notifying legal
authorities over.

Quoted message said:

I use challenge-response only for messages over a certain size limit. (And that has only happened
once in months because a message that big is almost certainly dumped by the virus recipes.)

I have only received 3 spam mails in the last three weeks and not a single incidence of a virus for
over 8 months. I am begining to find this subject quite amusing.

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

1] Have two or three mail accounts that you can access, if you wish, either by pop3 or web based
interface. Select one [the one provided as a matter of course by your access provider] as your
main mail facillity. With this one - adopt the following policies:

[a] Never ever quote it either on the web, usenet or any other electronic communication medium.
Allow access to it only to friends, relatives and trusted business contacts but never quote it
in a direct e-mail in the body. Not even munged.
[b] Never quote it on commercial forms or surveys.

2] The other mail accounts - should be:

[c] Used when it is necessary to have a vailid mail account as a means of validating entitlement or
identity to acquire internet service facillities.

[d] Use one only for use on usenet and do not do so without munging unless it is a throw away
account. You can access this via the web interface or pop3 but the former is better.

[e] Use one for web based applications such as form filling on the web and do so without munging. Do
not set this mail account for access via pop3 in your mail client but access only via a web
interface.

3] Mail addresses - with the exception of your 'primary' mail account, all others should not
reflect your real identity completely unless you are completely confident that your operating
procedure affords you the necessary minimum security.

4] Never set your mail program to auto download the mail body. Set to recieve header only.

5] Never use 'Rich Text' or HTML format for creating or responding to mail.

6] Never download or accept an attachment unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

7] Never download a mail unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

8] Avoid using clients that are the most popular. These are taken into account by those determined
to exploit weaknesses. Such as OE, Netscape and Eudora to name a few. There are plenty of others
which are less attractive to hackers and less vulnerable as well as free, such as Calypso, BB
and others.

9] Never ever use the Windoze Address Book facility or any other address book that is 'built into'
your mail client. Use a standalone software and copy/paste addresses. There are a lot of free
ones available. Or create your own.

10] Never ever use the 'REPLY' facillity in your client. Most automatically insert 'Re:' as the
first characters in the subject line. If you do then ammend the subject line to delete 'Re'
before sending.

11] Never download a mail with 'Re' 'Hello' Adv Fwd [to mention a few] in the subject line and avoid
doing so yourself.

12] Never ever respond to a spammer or follow a link provided in the body of the mail if you have
inadvertantly downloaded it.

13] If you complain to a spammer then do not use youe main mail address to send the complaint. Use
one of the others and either munge or remove your remove your mail detail from the header of the
mail you send in as part of the complaint.

14] Never CC or Fwd mail.

15] Never send unsolicited mail yourself - to private individuals and do not use your main account
for 'cold mailing' to others. Not even reputable businesses.

16] Use an AV product - and there are free ones about - which will scan boot up and all mail inbound
and outbound.

17] Use a browser cleaner such as Spybot/Adaware every other day to remove trackers etc. Also remove
Cookies/History every week.

18] Disable or remove all internet protocols from your system tha are not essential. Such as
IPS/SPX and remove Netbios from Networking if you do not need it. For usenet/web and mail you
only need TCP/IP

19] Use a firewall - there are free ones available such as Kerio.

20] Use a 'Port Listener' - again free - to monitor what ports are bing accessed.

21] Never leave your equipment unattended, on and connected.

22] Unload all Network capability if not in use.

These are some of the items you should be looking at to ensure your security and privacy. There are
more but I consider this the minimum.

HTH

[Now ducking]

Pete

Diagnosed 20/03/03 Type II D&E + Metformin + Gliclazide
+ Asprin 210lbs at Dx to BMI 166lbs achieved. To mail: aspen at freeuk.com

Jim Dumas said:

Then you still don't know if the addresses, that passed your filters, are valid. You must
challenge them to find out if they are real. You may save

If they passed my filters, either they aren't spam or the filters need tweaking.

Quoted message said:

a few challenges with spam filters, but eventually all roads lead to Rome and a challenge must
be sent.

A few? I don't need to challenge a message I wanted to receive. The size limit is the _last_ of the
defenses, and it has only triggered once.

Wes Groleau said:

Jim Dumas said:

Then you still don't know if the addresses, that passed your filters, are valid. You must
challenge them to find out if they are real. You may save

If they passed my filters, either they aren't spam or the filters need tweaking.

But you still don't know if the sender's address is valid. You _must_ send an email to do this. So
my requirement for spammers is a two-way dialog. I want some personal attention or I ain't gonna
look. If it's one-way (with bogus return address) then I discard everything at the ISP level on the
mail server. So I never see the advertisement. The spammer _must_ respond to the challenge to get
the ad to me. They obviously can't do this. More importantly, the challenge-response method
prequalifies the address as valid before I get involved.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a few challenges with spam filters, but eventually all roads lead to Rome and a challenge must
be sent.

A few? I don't need to challenge a message I wanted to receive. The size limit is the _last_ of
the defenses, and it has only triggered once.

Even at 50% of incoming spam, it's a deal. What incentive do the spammers have to conserve
bandwidth? Then why should I bother as well?

Let's buy a Hummer to get my share of gasoline, right? The American way,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

Pete said:

14] Never CC or Fwd mail.

*Errrernt!* You just got the _buzzer_ and hooked off the stage, Pete.

You're only as good as the weakest link in your circle of trusted friends.

Moreover, what happens when someone in this circle of friends gets a virus with email harvester.
You're SOL.

With all those rules, you better just buy stamps and forget it,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

Pete said:

I have only received 3 spam mails in the last three weeks

Then you are fortunate enough to have an address that doesn't fit any of the 'guessing' algorithms
that spammers use.

Quoted message said:

and not a single incidence of a virus for over 8 months. I

Then either your ISP is filtering them or you have NO acquaintances using Windows.

Quoted message said:

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

I've used all these techniques. They make a big difference but they don't make one spam-free. And
they all have disadvantages. Some of the disadvantages are worth it (to me) and some are not. For
the latter, I gave up that particular technique.

Quoted message said:

1] Have two or three mail accounts that you can access, if you wish, either by pop3 or web based
interface. Select one [the one provided as a matter of course by your access provider] as your
main mail facillity. With this one - adopt the following policies:

Indeed. I had three. I gave NO ONE the "main" address. I gave friends a despammed.com address which
forwarded to the 'real' address (after the filtering set up by them). I used myrealbox.com on Usenet
because that one had some filtering but still (allegedly) allowed me to write my own rules for what
their conservative filters didn't catch. Dropped them because the rule mechanism didn't work.

Quoted message said:

[a] Never ever quote it either on the web, usenet or any other electronic communication medium.
Allow access to it only to friends, relatives and trusted business contacts but never quote it
in a direct e-mail in the body. Not even

If you give your "real" address to ONE novice Windows user, in three months hundreds of them will
have it. Half of those will be forwarding urban legends that they received WITH your address inside
in an unsnipped header from an earlier forwarding.

[quote="Quoted message"][b] Never quote it on commercial forms or surveys.[/quote]

Bingo! On the paper side, I still get junk mail where the second address line is literally "NO
JUNK MAIL"

Quoted message said:

2] The other mail accounts - should be:

[c] Used when it is necessary to have a vailid mail account as a means of validating entitlement
or identity to acquire internet service facillities.

Quoted message said:

[d] Use one only for use on usenet and do not do so without [snip]
[e] Use one for web based applications such as form filling

Quoted message said:

5] Never use 'Rich Text' or HTML format for creating or responding to mail.

Quoted message said:

6] Never download or accept an attachment unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

Quoted message said:

7] Never download a mail unless you can positively identify the sender by name.

Quoted message said:

8] Avoid using clients that are the most popular. ....

Quoted message said:

9] Never ever use the Windoze Address Book facility or any other address book that is 'built
into' your mail client. Use a standalone software and copy/paste addresses. There

Quoted message said:

are a lot of free ones available. Or create your own.

Quoted message said:

10] Never ever use the 'REPLY' facillity in your client. Most automatically insert 'Re:' as the
first characters in the subject line. If you do then ammend the subject line to delete 'Re'
before sending.

Quoted message said:

11] Never download a mail with 'Re' 'Hello' Adv Fwd [to mention a few] in the subject line and
avoid doing so yourself.

Quoted message said:

12] Never ever respond to a spammer or follow a link provided in the body of the mail if you have
inadvertantly downloaded it.

Quoted message said:

13] If you complain to a spammer then do not use youe main mail address to send the complaint. Use
one of the others

Quoted message said:

14] Never CC or Fwd mail.

Quoted message said:

15] Never send unsolicited mail yourself - to private individuals and do not use your main account
for 'cold mailing' to others. Not even reputable businesses.

Quoted message said:

16] Use an AV product - and there are free ones about - which will scan boot up and all mail
inbound and outbound.

Quoted message said:

17] Use a browser cleaner such as Spybot/Adaware every other day to remove trackers etc. Also
remove Cookies/History every week.

Quoted message said:

18] Disable or remove all internet protocols from your system tha are not essential. Such as
IPS/SPX and remove Netbios from Networking if you do not need it. For usenet/web and mail you
only need TCP/IP
19] Use a firewall - there are free ones available such as Kerio.
20] Use a 'Port Listener' - again free - to monitor what ports are bing accessed.

Quoted message said:

21] Never leave your equipment unattended, on and connected.

Quoted message said:

22] Unload all Network capability if not in use.

Jim Dumas said:

But you still don't know if the sender's address is valid. You _must_ send

If it's a friend, I know.

Quoted message said:

an email to do this. So my requirement for spammers is a two-way dialog.

My requirement for spammers is "Get lost" (aka /dev/null)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A few? I don't need to challenge a message I wanted to receive. The size limit is the _last_ of
the defenses, and it has only triggered once.

Even at 50% of incoming spam, it's a deal. What incentive do the spammers

I did not say fifty percent. I said, "it has only triggered once"

Wes Groleau said:

Jim Dumas said:

But you still don't know if the sender's address is valid. You _must_ send

If it's a friend, I know.

Quoted message said:

an email to do this. So my requirement for spammers is a two-way dialog.

My requirement for spammers is "Get lost" (aka /dev/null)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A few? I don't need to challenge a message I wanted to receive. The size limit is the _last_ of
the defenses, and it has only triggered once.

Even at 50% of incoming spam, it's a deal. What incentive do the spammers

I did not say fifty percent. I said, "it has only triggered once"

50% is my guess at how much BrightMail catches. I still have 1 email address that only uses
BrightMail filtering (and Norton AV) from Earthlink. It is my oldest email address from 2/1997. So
it gets a large amount of spam. From November, 2003, I've noticed an increase in spam that is
getting through the BrightMail first filter. I thought it was Xmas advertising related, but it has
been getting worse in the new year. This gets caught in my linux mailfilter rules. But gives me an
estimate on how bad spam is: ~4 spam emails per hour getting through BrightMail.

In any case, the only problem I see with challenge-response is when both parties use it. The
challenge could get stuck in the "suspected spam list" that gets reported weekly or daily (you set
this switch). If you visually scan this list and miss the counter-challenge, then we have a
deadlock. I have yet to experience this problem so am watching for it closely. The deadlock is
broken if the sender places the recipient's address in the online addressbook before initiating
first contact. This may be an issue.

But your problem is how to qualify a new contact, not the old ones,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily,
moderate exercise, typically <6% HbA1c

willbill said:

3 Feb 2004 17:08:25 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Wes Groleau wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You mistakenly assume I'm as stupid as the spammer.

Quoted message said:

I assume nothing. You assume that they are too dumb to understand that your countermeasures
indicate that they should stop sending _you_.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone want to do a controlled study?

Quoted message said:

The fact that we're all still spammed to death no matter all your ingenious schemes and thoughts
might make that study very superfluous.

Quoted message said:

imo, the spammers who send out these new spam messages to many (all?) of the newsgroups NEVER read
any responses to their spam post(s)

Quoted message said:

so replying to those mass spam postings is a total waste of time

Quoted message said:

instead, write to your Federal representatives (House and Senate if you are in the USA)

In my opinion, that would not be the most useful approach, for two reasons:

1) Those are the very people responsible for enacting the CAN-SPAM bill which legalizes spam that
was previously illegal. It also makes the onus of stoppage on the victim. 🙁

2) Direct complaints to the hosts/ISPs seem to be a better approach. It can be painstaking, but it
can also be effective.

Randy

Pete <[email hidden]> wrote: [snippage]

Quoted message said:

I have only received 3 spam mails in the last three weeks and not a single incidence of a virus
for over 8 months. I am begining to find this subject quite amusing.

Quoted message said:

The only way to be spam free is to adopt the recommended techniques. As soon as you do - then you
will see the difference almost immediately. And the best thing of all, there is no way for the
spammers to get arround it.

[22 rules snipped]

There is a far superior system. Do not connect your computer to the internet, ever. I say that
tongue in cheek, but quite frankly, it is the only way to be sure one's email address does not ever
attract any spams.

Randy