Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:32:40 -0600
Reply-To: Paul Thompson <paul@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: Paul Thompson <paul@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU>
Organization: Washington University in St. Louis
Subject: Re: Child porno and spam
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Terry del Fuego wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 05:00:56 -0600, "Kevin Myers"
> <KevinMyers@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>Unfortunately, the download issue is not nearly as clear cut a distinction
>>as you might hope. If you receive porn spam (as myself and many other
>>frequent contributors and users of public newsgroups often do), the spam
>>typically includes html that when displayed in an email preview window on
>>your machine *automatically* downloads the porn pictures to your machine
>>*without* any action on your part.
> There's an easy solution to that: Don't use Outlook. Though, sadly,
> that's easier said than done in a lot of situations.
I use Eudora. I get the porno spam all the time.
This has nothing to do with a mail client. This has to do with
PURPOSEFUL BEHAVIOR vs. VICTIMHOOD. I am a victim of porno spam. I have
not downloaded any porno from anywhere - this is not a moral statement,
just a statement of fact.
I am just hoping I don't get child pornospam. And let's be clear - I
have received SOLICITATIONS about child porno.
>>One possible way to try to avoid this is by using email filters and/or
>>installing anti-spam software. However, many folks whose email is an
>>important part of their business communications *cannot* afford to have
>>*any* valid emails accidentally filtered out. Since no spam filter can be
>>guaranteed against generating false positives, folks like myself simply find
>>such techniques too risky too use. In case you aren't already aware, most
>>of this spam garbage comes across with subject lines and content that are
>>specifically designed to fool filters and anti-spam software. That makes it
>>much more difficult to design filters that effectively stop the spam without
>>generating false positives, hence the risk...
> I agree with everything you say, but still recommend POPFile, which is
> "trainable" and does a pretty good job. "Pretty good" is not the same
> as "perfect", but I find that it still makes the job of manually
> slogging through the chaff easier.