Elecraft

Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

Classic

List

Threaded

13 messages Options

Mike Morrow-3

Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it aggravating to respond to a request on this list, and get in return a message with a link I have to fill out for the honor of passing the information to the requestee?

Please...if you are requesting help, don't insult me by expecting me to jump through these idiotic processes that say, in effect, that your time is more valuable than mine.

Now...that feels better!

Mike / KK5F
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Ian Stirling, G4ICV, AB2GR

Re: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

On Wednesday 15 March 2006 15:29, Mike Morrow wrote:

> Please...if you are requesting help, don't insult me by expecting me to jump through these idiotic processes that say, in effect, that your time is more valuable than mine.

Mike,

You have a 'Reply To' in your postings' headers that
directs a reply to your email address rather than the list
address, as do many people here.
It can be a problem if the responder doesn't notice
this, especially if the email address is an autoresponder.

I use a white list email filter on my local computer and
no 'catch all' mailboxes at my domains.
It's much easier to teach filters to recognize good email
than try to identify spam.
All messages are directed to the spam box and land there
unless the filter sees them as good.

For elecraft related email, I look for two header lines.
If 'X-Original-To' contains elecraft@mailman, the email
goes to my elecraft list box. If not, and [Elecraft] is on
the 'To' line, someone has written to me directly and it
is directed to my elecraft private reply box.

If someone writes to me directly without some key, such
as [Elecraft] on the 'To' line, or my name on the 'To' line,
(spammers collect only email addresses) it lands in the
spam box. I look at everything in the spam box and if I see
something good, I add it to the filters.

I use more robust methods, filtering on 'Return-Path'
or others that are not easily forged, for sites that
are frequently forged by scammers and spammers.

I won't fill in web forms to contact anyone.
I have registered with sites that are free, but only
to purchase online.
If I have to register to look at a file, even if
registering is free, I go without it or look somewhere else.

Ian, G4ICV, AB2GR, K2 #4962
--
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Ron D'Eau Claire-2

RE: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3

Mike KK5F wrote:

I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it aggravating to respond to a
request on this list, and get in return a message with a link I have to fill
out for the honor of passing the information to the requestee?

Please...if you are requesting help, don't insult me by expecting me to jump
through these idiotic processes that say, in effect, that your time is more
valuable than mine.

-------------------------------------------------

I always respond to the list. That holds down the traffic because then the
requestor doesn't get a boxful of identical answers and the question doesn't
have to be asked again and again on the reflector.

The Elecraft list doesn't require any more forms to be filled out once
you've joined up...

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Craig Rairdin

RE: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Ian Stirling, G4ICV, AB2GR

> Please...if you are requesting help, don't insult me by
> expecting me to jump through these idiotic processes
> that say, in effect, that your time is more valuable
> than mine.

I'm normally one who doesn't put up with a lot of crap. I just got a call
from a company asking me to make sure I've submitted my proxy for the
upcoming shareholders meeting. Did you send me the proxy announcement in the
mail? Did it give me three different ways to state my preferences (mail,
Web, and phone)? Is one of my options to withhold my vote? Then why are you
calling me? -- that kind of thing.

However, your logic in this post is self-defeating. By refusing to go
through the process of being whitelisted, you are saying, in effect, that
your time is more valuable than the person to whom you sent the email -- the
same accusation you make of him or her.

Under normal circumstances these systems are harmless as long as they're
working properly. Everyone to whom you send an email should be automatically
added to the whitelist so their response is not blocked. Everyone who sends
an uninvited email is temporarily blocked. In that case the sender obviously
wants their email to go through, so filling out a form to make it happen is
not a problem.

When replying privately to a post on a list like this one, there's no way
you can expect the original sender can pre-approve all list members. So when
you choose to reply privately I don't see why it makes sense to complain
about having to go through the authentication step. Are you really trying to
help a person or is this spirit of helpfulness just a thin veneer over an
otherwise cold, dark heart? The latter seems likely if all it takes to
discourage you from helping is an email asking you to authenticate your
identity. (By the way I'm replying to someone who replied to the original
sender, whose message I missed, so I'm not picking on anyone in particular
here.)

In my position as president of my company I get a lot of unsolicited email
from customers. In many cases I'm sure if we did the math, my time really IS
more valuable than theirs. I like to think that I'm above lording that over
them, however, and have no problem doing a little vision test and filling in
the numbers on an authentication form.

Craig
NZ0R
K1 #1966
K2/100 #4941

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Don Wilhelm-3

RE: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

Craig,

Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. If someone asks me for my help, I do
not expect to fill out any forms to provide that assistance - and I will
not.

There are many very good and effective spam filters out there - I use
Spambayes, and after a very short period of training, I have no false
positives and all but a very few unsolicited emails are properly classified
as Junk.

To block all that are not whitelisted is more cumbersome than using a good
spam filter, and reviewing the 'authentication' list takes much more time
than training a good filter. The authentication process takes time on both
ends.

Note that I have replied to the list only because I expect I would be
'authorize requested' if I replied in a personal note - and I will NOT fill
out the 'form'.

Yes, each of us is the president of our personal 'company', and since we do
not have a staff to do this task for us, it does take a lot of undue time.
I may be retired, but I am certainly not idle!!! My time IS valuable. I do
offer my time to help fellow hams, but for those who want to block me, I
will not go to extra measures to provide that assistance.

73,
Don W3FPR

> -----Original Message-----
>
> > Please...if you are requesting help, don't insult me by
> > expecting me to jump through these idiotic processes
> > that say, in effect, that your time is more valuable
> > than mine.
>
> I'm normally one who doesn't put up with a lot of crap. I just got a call
> from a company asking me to make sure I've submitted my proxy for the
> upcoming shareholders meeting. Did you send me the proxy
> announcement in the
> mail? Did it give me three different ways to state my preferences (mail,
> Web, and phone)? Is one of my options to withhold my vote? Then
> why are you
> calling me? -- that kind of thing.
>
> However, your logic in this post is self-defeating. By refusing to go
> through the process of being whitelisted, you are saying, in effect, that
> your time is more valuable than the person to whom you sent the
> email -- the
> same accusation you make of him or her.
>
> Under normal circumstances these systems are harmless as long as they're
> working properly. Everyone to whom you send an email should be
> automatically
> added to the whitelist so their response is not blocked. Everyone
> who sends
> an uninvited email is temporarily blocked. In that case the
> sender obviously
> wants their email to go through, so filling out a form to make it
> happen is
> not a problem.
>
> When replying privately to a post on a list like this one, there's no way
> you can expect the original sender can pre-approve all list
> members. So when
> you choose to reply privately I don't see why it makes sense to complain
> about having to go through the authentication step. Are you
> really trying to
> help a person or is this spirit of helpfulness just a thin veneer over an
> otherwise cold, dark heart? The latter seems likely if all it takes to
> discourage you from helping is an email asking you to authenticate your
> identity. (By the way I'm replying to someone who replied to the original
> sender, whose message I missed, so I'm not picking on anyone in particular
> here.)
>
> In my position as president of my company I get a lot of unsolicited email
> from customers. In many cases I'm sure if we did the math, my
> time really IS
> more valuable than theirs. I like to think that I'm above lording
> that over
> them, however, and have no problem doing a little vision test and
> filling in
> the numbers on an authentication form.
>
> Craig
> NZ0R
> K1 #1966
> K2/100 #4941
>
>

Craig Rairdin

RE: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3

I agree in the case where I send you a personal email then block your
response. No question that's rude. But we're talking about posting a
question to a list of 2000+ people, expecting an answer to be sent to the
list. I think it's unreasonable to expect all members of the list to
manually whitelist all members of the list in case they respond personally
to a posting to the list.

I don't see the problem. If I've taken a few minutes to reply directly to
some stranger, then taking a couple more seconds to fill out an
authentication form is no big deal.

I would argue your position is no different than saying "I resent people
asking questions on this list and expecting me to answer. Like I have time
to tell them how to solder or where to look for the thermal pads in their K2
kit (they're in the envelope labelled "serial number kit" -- where else
would they be!!). I have to move my hand to operate the mouse and select the
reply button. Then I have to move my hand back to the keyboard and type out
a response, one letter at a time using a keyboard that has all the letters
scrambled. Then I proofread it to make sure I haven't made any obvious
mistakes, then it's back over to the mouse (will this never end?!) to select
"send". Oh, and to top it all off, now I have to delete the original
message! Who are these people who are saying, in effect, that their time is
more valuable than mine?"

It's truly bizarre to me to have people volunteer to join a list the purpose
of which is to help people do something they know about, then complain about
doing the very thing they voluntarily chose to do.

I've said what I came to say. That's my last posting to the list on this
subject. Any additional flames can be sent to me off-list and I'd be happy
to respond, even to your autoresponder. :-)

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bayern [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:29 AM
To: Craig Rairdin
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

When someone asks a question, they should be open to receiving the answers.

There is something very wrong about asking a question and then in effect
stating, "I'll only listen to those who choose to fill out my authentication
forms."

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Rich McCabe

Re: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-3

"My time IS valuable. I do offer my time to help fellow hams, but for those
who want to block me, I
will not go to extra measures to provide that assistance."

I am onboard with this philosophy as well. My company provides
webhosting/email and I can say from experience (and lots of research on our
end) there are much better solutions than the authentication spam programs.

73,
Rich
kd0zv

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Wilhelm" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

> Craig,
>
> Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. If someone asks me for my help, I do
> not expect to fill out any forms to provide that assistance - and I will
> not.
>
> There are many very good and effective spam filters out there - I use
> Spambayes, and after a very short period of training, I have no false
> positives and all but a very few unsolicited emails are properly
> classified
> as Junk.
>
> To block all that are not whitelisted is more cumbersome than using a good
> spam filter, and reviewing the 'authentication' list takes much more time
> than training a good filter. The authentication process takes time on
> both
> ends.
>
> Note that I have replied to the list only because I expect I would be
> 'authorize requested' if I replied in a personal note - and I will NOT
> fill
> out the 'form'.
>
> Yes, each of us is the president of our personal 'company', and since we
> do
> not have a staff to do this task for us, it does take a lot of undue time.
> I may be retired, but I am certainly not idle!!! My time IS valuable. I
> do
> offer my time to help fellow hams, but for those who want to block me, I
> will not go to extra measures to provide that assistance.
>
> 73,
> Don W3FPR
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> > Please...if you are requesting help, don't insult me by
>> > expecting me to jump through these idiotic processes
>> > that say, in effect, that your time is more valuable
>> > than mine.
>>
>> I'm normally one who doesn't put up with a lot of crap. I just got a call
>> from a company asking me to make sure I've submitted my proxy for the
>> upcoming shareholders meeting. Did you send me the proxy
>> announcement in the
>> mail? Did it give me three different ways to state my preferences (mail,
>> Web, and phone)? Is one of my options to withhold my vote? Then
>> why are you
>> calling me? -- that kind of thing.
>>
>> However, your logic in this post is self-defeating. By refusing to go
>> through the process of being whitelisted, you are saying, in effect, that
>> your time is more valuable than the person to whom you sent the
>> email -- the
>> same accusation you make of him or her.
>>
>> Under normal circumstances these systems are harmless as long as they're
>> working properly. Everyone to whom you send an email should be
>> automatically
>> added to the whitelist so their response is not blocked. Everyone
>> who sends
>> an uninvited email is temporarily blocked. In that case the
>> sender obviously
>> wants their email to go through, so filling out a form to make it
>> happen is
>> not a problem.
>>
>> When replying privately to a post on a list like this one, there's no way
>> you can expect the original sender can pre-approve all list
>> members. So when
>> you choose to reply privately I don't see why it makes sense to complain
>> about having to go through the authentication step. Are you
>> really trying to
>> help a person or is this spirit of helpfulness just a thin veneer over an
>> otherwise cold, dark heart? The latter seems likely if all it takes to
>> discourage you from helping is an email asking you to authenticate your
>> identity. (By the way I'm replying to someone who replied to the original
>> sender, whose message I missed, so I'm not picking on anyone in
>> particular
>> here.)
>>
>> In my position as president of my company I get a lot of unsolicited
>> email
>> from customers. In many cases I'm sure if we did the math, my
>> time really IS
>> more valuable than theirs. I like to think that I'm above lording
>> that over
>> them, however, and have no problem doing a little vision test and
>> filling in
>> the numbers on an authentication form.
>>
>> Craig
>> NZ0R
>> K1 #1966
>> K2/100 #4941
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Brian Mury-3

RE: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-3

On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 10:25 -0500, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. If someone asks me for my help, I do
> not expect to fill out any forms to provide that assistance - and I will
> not.

I agree completely. Those challenge emails are generally considered to
be poor netiquette, and many people will not be bothered to reply to the
challenge (myself included).

There is another issue - what if we are both using this type of spam
blocking? You won't see my email until I reply to your challenge, but I
won't see your challenge until you reply to my challenge in response to
your challenge - so we will never establish communications.

> There are many very good and effective spam filters out there - I use
> Spambayes, and after a very short period of training, I have no false
> positives and all but a very few unsolicited emails are properly classified
> as Junk.

Any form of Bayesian filtering is highly accurate once trained. I use
SpamAssassin, which combines Bayesian filtering with other filtering
methods. I get hundreds of spam a week, but I usually only see one every
few weeks. However, it never flags ham as spam.

My one and only contribution to this off-topic thread, back to playing
with my K2... :-)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

David A. Belsley

Re: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin

Wow, do I find this response to be out of bounds. I go Don's route.

best wishes,

dave belsley, w1euy

On Mar 16, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Craig Rairdin wrote:

> I agree in the case where I send you a personal email then block your
> response. No question that's rude. But we're talking about posting a
> question to a list of 2000+ people, expecting an answer to be sent
> to the
> list. I think it's unreasonable to expect all members of the list to
> manually whitelist all members of the list in case they respond
> personally
> to a posting to the list.
>
> I don't see the problem. If I've taken a few minutes to reply
> directly to
> some stranger, then taking a couple more seconds to fill out an
> authentication form is no big deal.
>
> I would argue your position is no different than saying "I resent
> people
> asking questions on this list and expecting me to answer. Like I
> have time
> to tell them how to solder or where to look for the thermal pads in
> their K2
> kit (they're in the envelope labelled "serial number kit" -- where
> else
> would they be!!). I have to move my hand to operate the mouse and
> select the
> reply button. Then I have to move my hand back to the keyboard and
> type out
> a response, one letter at a time using a keyboard that has all the
> letters
> scrambled. Then I proofread it to make sure I haven't made any obvious
> mistakes, then it's back over to the mouse (will this never end?!)
> to select
> "send". Oh, and to top it all off, now I have to delete the original
> message! Who are these people who are saying, in effect, that their
> time is
> more valuable than mine?"
>
> It's truly bizarre to me to have people volunteer to join a list
> the purpose
> of which is to help people do something they know about, then
> complain about
> doing the very thing they voluntarily chose to do.
>
> I've said what I came to say. That's my last posting to the list on
> this
> subject. Any additional flames can be sent to me off-list and I'd
> be happy
> to respond, even to your autoresponder. :-)
>
> Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bayern [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:29 AM
> To: Craig Rairdin
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list
> participation
>
>
> When someone asks a question, they should be open to receiving the
> answers.
>
> There is something very wrong about asking a question and then in
> effect
> stating, "I'll only listen to those who choose to fill out my
> authentication
> forms."
>
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

KZ5A

RE: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-3

Don,

You may have missed the point. The original post was regarding someone
complaining about hitting a spam filter when respond to an inquiry made TO
THE LIST. In which case the originator of the inquiry has no particular
idea who will respond.

Here's a suggestion for anyone who feels that responding to an email
authentication request is way too much of an imposition on their valuable
time.... JUST DON'T.... No body will really care.

It doesn't really matter if you respond or not, the person to whom you sent
your highly valued reply to will get your email anyway. The only thing you
accomplish by responding to the authentication request is to cause an email
to be forwarded to the reciepent advising them that your email is waiting
for them. If they sent a inquiry they will already be checking for
replies. So just ignore the authentication requests and life and the list
will go on FB and everyone will be happy.

73 Jack KZ5A

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Don Wilhelm
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:25 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list
participation

Craig,

Sorry, but I beg to differ with you. If someone asks me for my help, I do
not expect to fill out any forms to provide that assistance - and I will
not.

There are many very good and effective spam filters out there - I use
Spambayes, and after a very short period of training, I have no false
positives and all but a very few unsolicited emails are properly classified
as Junk.

To block all that are not whitelisted is more cumbersome than using a good
spam filter, and reviewing the 'authentication' list takes much more time
than training a good filter. The authentication process takes time on both
ends.

Note that I have replied to the list only because I expect I would be
'authorize requested' if I replied in a personal note - and I will NOT fill
out the 'form'.

Yes, each of us is the president of our personal 'company', and since we do
not have a staff to do this task for us, it does take a lot of undue time.
I may be retired, but I am certainly not idle!!! My time IS valuable. I do
offer my time to help fellow hams, but for those who want to block me, I
will not go to extra measures to provide that assistance.

73,
Don W3FPR

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Vic K2VCO

Re: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin

Craig Rairdin wrote:

> However, your logic in this post is self-defeating. By refusing to go
> through the process of being whitelisted, you are saying, in effect, that
> your time is more valuable than the person to whom you sent the email -- the
> same accusation you make of him or her.

Bad argument. I do a lot of my business via email, so I get several
hundred messages a day. Spam, while annoying, takes up very little of
my time. The Thunderbird email client is almost perfect in separating
out the spam, and I spend a short time once a day scanning the headers
in case of a false positive. The little spam that does get through is
deleted as fast as I can click the mouse.

On the other hand, going through the 'whitelist' procedure can get
*very* annoying, especially when you get multiple requests in a short
period.

> So when
> you choose to reply privately I don't see why it makes sense to complain
> about having to go through the authentication step. Are you really trying to
> help a person or is this spirit of helpfulness just a thin veneer over an
> otherwise cold, dark heart?

The time it takes for a message to appear on the list is variable.
Sometimes it's almost immediate, sometimes it takes a half hour. So if
I reply to a technical question I might reply directly (as well as to
the list if it's of general interest) so that he will get the response
immediately.

> In my position as president of my company I get a lot of unsolicited email
> from customers. In many cases I'm sure if we did the math, my time really IS
> more valuable than theirs.

I'm also the president of a company, and it is always appropriate for me
to spend time responding to my customers.
--
73,
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

W2AGN

Re: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin

Craig Rairdin wrote:
>
> It's truly bizarre to me to have people volunteer to join a list the purpose
> of which is to help people do something they know about, then complain about
> doing the very thing they voluntarily chose to do.
>
>
Well, I agree with those who think it is bizarre, as well as rude and
selfish, to ask for help on a list or any where else, and then expect
those that offer that help to take the extra, time consuming and
annoying step of "authenticating" themselves.

John W2AGN
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

Nigel A. Gunn G8IFF/KC8NHF

Re: Simple-minded SPAM filters vs. list participation

In reply to this post by KZ5A

The problem doesn't arise when only replying to the list.
The problem is that far too many list users don't bother to delete the
previous senders addresses in the REPLY TO list
and therefore send out several replies to each message.
Invariably, if someone replies to my post, I get the reply to the list
and an unwanted duplicate reply to me. That reply to me is effectively spam.

Please guys, delete the addrresses you don't absolutely NEED to send to
and also prune the rubbish from the message you're replying to.

KZ5A wrote:
> Don,
>
> You may have missed the point. The original post was regarding someone
> complaining about hitting a spam filter when respond to an inquiry made TO
> THE LIST. In which case the originator of the inquiry has no particular
> idea who will respond.
>
>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com