5 ms·
Sure, but I think the salient point here is this: we've gotten good enough at filtering spam that looking through your email inbox is no longer a major headache
by Niten 17y ago
Sure, but I think the salient point here is this: we've gotten good enough at filtering spam that looking through your email inbox is no longer a major headache. That's how I frame the war on spam, anyway, and in that sense I'd say we're definitely winning. Maybe not won, but winning.
- pg 17y agoI worry that while this is true for us GMail users, it may not be true for everyone. Plus GMail is a bit strict. I still get lots of false positives.
- vog 17y agoI think the problem is "solved" for non-GMail users, too. Nowadays, setting up a good spam-protected mail server isn't very sophisticated anymore. In our company, I'm running a plain Exim mail server with a SpamAssassin in almost default configuration and some standard RBLs. Although I have a quite burned email address, I'm getting just around 5 spam emails per day and false positives are rare (less than 1 per month, I guess).
- rms 17y agoIt works perfectly for all of my personal email addresses that I have taken care to keep off of the web in spiderable form, but I get lots of false positives for my business email addresses that are out there as as a mailto:.
- WorkerBee 17y agowe've gotten good enough at filtering spam If we had (all of us) the parent's point would apply: spammers would not be making enough money since no-one would respond. So for some people, spam is still a problem when are fooled by scams.