Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ,----
> [ Quote ]
> | Nearly every e-mail consumers receive -- some 86 percent -- is
> | considered spam, either malicious or simply "unwanted content"
> | today, a new study provided to TechNewsWorld demonstrates.
> `----
Depending on which of my Email aliases spam is posted to, it is
either:
. Rejected ("no such user" - i.e. catch-all reject)
. Challenged (upstream service I use for known compromised aliases)
. Sent to the US Government (FTC) (indiscriminate Usenet harvesters)
. Reported (another upstream service, for previously uncompromised
aliases, or abuse by previously trusted parties)
The whole system is completely transparent and automated using
forwarding, and It's only the later case that yields any visible
results at my end, and by visible, I mean no other messages even
arrive at my local server. I remain blissfully unaware that any spam
even existed.
The *visible* spam count (i.e. what landed at the reporting service)
for the whole of last year, was ... 3 !
In each case, it was a "trusted party" who abused their obligations
under the Data Protection Act, and unlawfully passed my records onto a
third party. The companies in question were Interflora, Harrods and
Tesco, in that order. Harrods was the most cooperative, escalating the
issue immediately and securing my records. Interflora took
considerably more persuasion, requiring intervention from the
Information Commissioner's Office, before offering full
compliance. The book's still open on Tesco, but I have sunk my teeth
in and will not let go until I draw blood.
The visible spam count for *this* year so far, is zero.
None of this means that I don't recognise there is a spam problem, of
course there is. Equally I'm not suggesting that this is the *best*
solution. However, until SPF records become mandatory, and a more
secure and trusted method of exchanging Email-like messages becomes
widely adopted, it'll have to do, and right now - it's doing very
nicely, thank you.
--
K.
(Online since 1991)
|
