Re: Security Compromised
- From: kurt wismer <kurtw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:31:33 -0500
Todd H. wrote:
Sebastian Gottschalk <seppi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
But the most important point: What's wrong with that after all? If you want
to communicate, you have to able to receive communication, and therefore
you'll also receive unsolicited communcation ("spam"). So what? That's what
spam filters are good for, and Bayesians filters do an excellent job after
some initial training. Therefore, the usually proposed spam problem doesn't
exist.
Latest numbers I've seen put spam% at 91% of internet email. Toss a
usenet address into the mix, and my own sampling indicates nearly 4
nines worth of it.
On certain addresses, Bayeian filters aren't keeping up, and why sign
up for the extra cpu load and crap to sort through?
The days of a replyable address on usenet are long gone I'm afraid.
no problems here... i post with my real address and over the past week i've gotten about 2 spams per day, almost all of them caught by thunderbird's junk mail filter...
--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"
.
- References:
- Re: Security Compromised
- From: Todd H.
- Re: Security Compromised
- Prev by Date: Re: Security Compromised
- Next by Date: using wireless internet without security
- Previous by thread: Re: Security Compromised
- Next by thread: Re: Security Compromised
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
