Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:42:07 -0400
From: Jim Kling <jkling at nasw.org>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: SpamArrest
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Ted White wrote:

>----- 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.
>
Right. So all you have to do is add the email list address to your list
and you are no longer cut off. Seems self evident to me.

But I'll stop now. I'm sure the rest of WSFAlist has had its share of
this discussion. If you or Keith want to continue it, I'll be happy to
do so offline.

>In any event, I think Keith has dealt better with the topic.
>
If you like. I'm certainly not convinced.

>   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.
>
Yeah, Keith pointed out my logical blunder there. Alas.

>Those rascally spammers are always a step (or two) ahead.
>
True. I find it an odd phenomenon. Seems like a zero-sum game that
should peter out over time, but so far it hasn't. The spam that I
receive now seems almost to be parodies of spams of the past, as if it's
just a big game for the amusement of a few hundred doofuses (I won't
give them the honor of calling them criminals).

--
Jim Kling
science writer
Rockville, MD
http://nasw.org/users/jkling