In message <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
writes
>Roy Brown wrote in part:
>> 3 times as much flows out from HP3000-L across the gateway as
>> flows in.
>> Still less than 2% of the postings, though, so no large damage.....

>That depends on how you measure it, and what you care about.

>Those of us post to the list, and who do not more or less ignore spam, may
>notice that some large part of the spam that appears on the listserv also
>gets sent to us individually. While there is apparently nothing that can be
>done to prevent any part of this, it does evidence that spammers cull
>addresses from comp.sys.hp.mpe for spamming. Some of them spam both the list
>and the posters. Presumably, some also just spam the posters. Perhaps
>someone who has attempted to track this problem by propagating unique
>addresses can shed some light on this with their observations and
>experience.

Having your address harvested from comp.sys.hp.mpe, when you'd like to
keep it 'local' to HP3000-L, would indeed be annoying.

However, what Greg describes doesn't fit the demographic. While a
spammer would be able to get Greg's address from the headers of this
comp.sys.hp.mpe article I'm reading, nowhere does it contain the List
address.

So while spam that goes to Greg individually might have been harvested
from here, I reckon that spam that commonly goes both to Greg
individually *and* to the List must have used some other means of
harvesting.

Also, while I get my fair share of spam - and like Greg, try to do
something about it - the overlap between spam to me personally and the
spam on comp.sys.hp.mpe (or indeed any newsgroup) is close to zero, if
not actually zero.

>Someone recently emailed me off-list, in response to my comment about
>creating spam-filtering rules in Outlook, based on header contents such as
>charset. He requested information about how to do this. So, I am not alone
>in wanting to fight back.

That's fighting back? I've got about 12 rules (in OE and in Turnpike
each) which route spam to a separate folder. Where I briefly check it
before sending it back whence it came, unless I think a report to the
abuser's ISP may bear fruit. IN which case, *that's* where it goes....

> Currently, I think that only an ISP-based solution
>can succeed in making spam not worth trying.

Yes, I agree. ISPs can see the whole flood, and ISPs have the means to
deal with it. Spam seems to have multiplied three- or four-fold in the
last six months, and killing anything from Korea seems to be mandatory
now. (It's just tough if you have a Daewoo car or an LG DVD :-(  )

I'm currently trying to 'encourage' my ISP to offer at least 'opt-in'
anti-spam services.

--
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *