alpines
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: spam

To: "Alpines" <alpines@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: spam
From: "Patrick" <pLaske@bigfoot.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:19:29 -0500
I agree with T.J.   The difference in the amount of spam that listers seem
to get is most likley because of the listers e-mail service.  Some are
better at weeding out spam than others.  Some don't even try.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "T.J. Higgins" <tjhiggin@mapapp1.iss.ingr.com>
To: "Alpines" <alpines@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 12:33 PM
Subject: spam


> > Is anyone else getting a whole lot of porno spam lately?   I use this
screen
> > name only for Alpine related stuff but I am getting bombed lately and
only on
> > this account.  I am wondering if anyone else has noticed a problem too.
>
> A lot of spam is sent to the list address but never gets through
> because only list members can post.  That has been the number one most
> effective tool in keeping spam off the list.  Such invalid messages
> are sent to the list-owner address.  So in addition to my own
> personal spam, I get to deal with the list spam.  Not really a
> problem, though, since I read mail through a telnet connection and
> thus don't have to actually download it before reading.  In any case,
> the print on my "d" key is nearly worn off!
>
> Brightmail.com is no longer accepting individual users, but you can
> register for free at places like bigfoot.com.  They block spam for
> you and also allow you to set up filtering criteria.  They then
> redirect your valid mail to any address you choose.  Another
> advantage is that if your email address changes, you simply change
> the redirection at your bigfoot account.  I haven't joined bigfoot
> yet but am considering it.
>
> A similar service is offered by pobox.com but it is not free.  Go to
> google.com, key in "free email for life" and you'll have several
> choices.
>
> --
> T.J. Higgins
> tjhiggin@ingr.com
> Huntsville, AL

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • spam, T.J. Higgins
    • Re: spam, Patrick <=