From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: SpamArrest
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:34:16 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Kling" <jkling at nasw.org>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 10:22 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: SpamArrest

> Ted White wrote:
>
> >Say you install SpamArrest in your computer.  And then you get a
WSFAlist
> >post from me.   SpamArrest won't query *me* to "go jump through the hoop
of
> >going to a web page and doing the confirmation."  It will query
WSFAlist.
> >And WSFAlist won't respond, thus consigning itself to being a spammer in
> >SpamArrest's eyes.
> >
> >I personally belong to close to two dozen lists, both fannish and
> >non-SF-oriented, and if I installed SpamArrest or any of its cousins I'd
be
> >cut off from all of them.   Your mileage may vary.
> >
> Seems readily evident. Put wsfalist at wsfa.org on your approved list
> before you sign up for SpamArrest. Granted it could create havoc for
> those who don't do it.
>
> Otoh, I've never seen it happen. Have you ever seen a SpamArrest message
> on any of your 20 lists? From your response, clearly you have not.

How would I see such a message?  It wouldn't show up *on* the list.

In any event, I think Keith has dealt better with the topic.   If he
hadn't, I was going to point out that most spam comes from "spoofed"
addresses, and may be promulgated by unwitting saps whose computers have
been taken over via a virus -- so your desire to see the spammers' servers
overwhelmed and shut down by responses is highly unlikely, however
laudible.  Those rascally spammers are always a step (or two) ahead.

--Ted White