Text 1818, 99 rader
Skriven 2005-01-08 21:21:00 av JAY EMRIE (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROBERT FOWLER
Ärende: Re: Spam              01/
=================================
RF>-=> JAY EMRIE wrote to ROBERT FOWLER <=-
 
RF> RF> All I can say is that you wouldn't get very far in today's business
RF> RF> world with that kind of restriction.  I suspect more people today
RF> RF> avoid using their names in their e-mail addresses than do.

RF> JE> First off, I am NOT in todays business world - I retired some years
RF> JE> back - thank the Lord.

RF> JE> Secondly, to even be considered as valid email, a name/address does not
RF> JE> necessarily have to have a persons name or address. It MUST, however,
RF> JE> have a somewhat believable name; not asdgertgf@twfgh.net.ur or the
RF> JE> like. How about something like: jht@aol.com or tom@mindspring.com????
RF> JE> Doesn't give a clue as to a persons actual name nor that it doesn't
RF> JE> contain a virus or illegal sales pitch. It is, however, much less
RF> JE> suspicious, but still warrants care.

RF> But most SPAM doesn't contain virii.  The reason for blocking it is
RF> to reduce wasted time.  As you also probably know, there can be only
RF> ONE user of any ID.  That means that jht@aol is probably taken.  You
RF> want jht, you would probably be offered something like jht43@aol.com.

That was for example only.

RF> I inferred from you previous post that you would automatically consider
RF> that SPAM.

Not so! That is a common method of email naming as is below.

RF> What about those who use "handles" as their ID, something quite popular
RF> among the younger generation.  TWINSMAMA@isp.com or ILUVTIMMY@isp.com?
RF> Again, there's nothing to point to a name, so my inference from your
RF> previous post is that you automatically call these SPAM?

No again. Those do make sense. wdwgwrbg@dfhhj.com does not!

RF> JE> Sure, I know that even that type can contain a virus. That is what
RF> JE> virus checkers are for. Even if not 100% perfect, they do catch nearly
RF> JE> all viruses if kept up to date and a bit of common sense being used.

RF> Yes, but the choice of an ID is NOT supposed to suggest that the e-mail
RF> is virus free or legitimate.

I consider it extremely suspicious when it is pure garbage.

RF> JE> Also, when I receive an email with an odd name, address and view it in
RF> JE> Mailwasher's preview and see nothing but a mishmash of words then I
RF> JE> delete it. Same deletion criterion applies to subject of "low cost
RF> JE> meds", "refinance", "low interest rates". etc.

RF> What might be a mishmash of words to you, is meaningful perhaps, but
RF> obscure enough to allow the choice to be duplicated over numerous
RF> mail accounts.  I use HLAB27, for example.  To those familiar with
RF> HLA typing, the significance is obvious.  The typical user OTOH, probably
RF> thinks that it is gibberish.

I am not familiar with HLA typing. Educate me please.

RF> JE> In effect, managing the San Antonio International Photographic Salon is
RF> JE> a BUSINESS, even though non-profit. I applied my reasoning to hundreds
RF> JE> of emails received from world wide communicants and never had a
RF> JE> misstep.

RF> Could be, but then how would you know?  Once an e-mail is blocked,
RF> you're cut off, unless the sender chooses to contact you by another
RF> route.

That is what is so good about MailWasher - I can see and read the
content of the email BEFORE it is downloaded to my system. If the name
is suspicious, I give it a much closer look as to the content. If the
content is a mishmash of a meaningless word combinations or obvious
spam, I delete it without downloading it to my system.

RF> JE> Between a good mail preview program (MailWasher) and a good virus
RF> JE> checker (Avast) I have been free of viruses and scams for quite a few
RF> JE> years, except for the one time I opened a suspicious email out of
RF> JE> curiosity, feeling relatively safe, having just updated my virus sigs.
RF> JE> Got a virus. Turned out it was new and NONE of the virus checking
RF> JE> programs had a sig for it. Most did the next day though. :-(

RF> JE> In summation, I believe my procedures would work quite well if I were
RF> JE> actually in business.

RF> Not sure what you mean about "procedures", since I was responding
RF> basically to your remarks about the USERNAME only.

My procedures are:
1. Look at and read the email BEFORE downloading it into my system.
2. If it is obvious spam, delete it right there.
3. If the message content is meaningless words, delete it right there.

My filters are set up to automatically mark FOR deletion email that
contains a rather comprehensive set of words and phrases such as Viagra
and it's various quirky spellings, low interest rates, refinance, you
(Continued to next message)

---
 þ OLXWin 1.00a þ Success comes in cans - not can'ts.
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)