[Samba] Re: [OT]SPAM

[tvsjr]

OK, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about... of course, look at the 
number of people confirming my story.

You'll discover that Outlook the mail client and Outlook the news reader 
are very much intermingled - if someone is using Outlook to browse the 
newsgroups and is infected, they will still transmit the virus to the 
direct email addresses shown on Usenet.

Read this one more time: I *DO NOT* have the option of running server-side 
filtering, unless I want to use Earthlink's option, which has given 
numerous false positives! As a consultant, I can not afford to have 
customer email ending up in the trash because the server thought it was spam.

Furthermore, I'm subscribed to 20+ mailing lists on this account (from 
various services, including private lists, Yahoo Groups, etc.) The spam 
count was about 10 per day until I subscribed to the Samba list. Now it's 
over 200. Argue as much as you like, but no one else seems to have this 
problem.

Terry

At 04:50 PM 10/15/2003 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
 >On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:56:18 -0500, tvsjr wrote:
 >
 >> Helpful suggestions (although its too late for those of us already
 >> subscribed): Quit forwarding the list onto Usenet, at least with email
 >> addresses exposed (what's the real use of this, considering it's not that
 >> big of a deal for people to subscribe?)
 >
 >I don't think viruses read Usenet.  I realize spammers do, but spammers
 >are a relatively small problem compared to Outlook viruses.
 >
 >> Protect emails anywhere the list is archived/posted
 >
 >Again, viruses do not read the archives.
 >
 >People who are receiving viruses are probably getting them because their
 >mail was read on an infected Windows PC either by a subscriber, or by
 >somebody subscribed to an echo list.  Archives and NNTP mirrors are
 >irrelevant.
 >
 >If I could stop infected people subscribing then I would, but I don't see
 >how to do that.
 >
 >So the only interim solution is to not post from an address without virus
 >filters.  I don't see any reason to force anonymous posts when you can do
 >it yourself and some people want to be non-anonymous.
 >
 >--
 >Martin