|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <6316CD198EC8BC44A9D200F375869F1E25DA69@nkc-mailsrv.nkc.org> From: Brian Keefer <chort@smtps.net> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:36:55 -0700 To: Michienne Dixon <mdixon@nkc.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On Oct 9, 2008, at 6:37 AM, Michienne Dixon wrote: > <snip> > I too think C-R spam 'prevention' is the lazy-mans approach at > filtering > spam. People can easily create their own whitelists based on their > maillogs or mailhistory. > <snip> > > Unfortunately, I feel the majority of the solutions offered cater > to the > non-technical. The process of simplifying often results in a product > that requires the least amount of hands-on from the end-user. Coupled > with the fact that the average end-user is not interested in > learning a > process that takes more then 5 paragraphs to explain and more than 10 > minutes to implement (without some sort of "wizard") and I think we > have > a good idea why the layman's approach is so prevalent. There are many, many other solutions that satisfy these requirements without massively inconveniencing everyone who tries to send you e-mail. I can only attribute the persistence of C-R as a method for combating spam to the fact that a sufficiently small percentage of humans will believe in *anything*, no matter how ludicrous it is. Hopefully this provides some motivation to those few who still cling uselessly to C-R to go out and spend 15 minutes researching advances in anti-spam technology in the last 5 years. Perhaps they will pull themselves out of the stone ages and stop irritating everyone. -- bk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |