🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <19980107002816761361@ppp-124-220.une.edu.au>,
deniswright@bigfoot.com (Denis Wright) wrote:

> Charles Arthur <see@the.reply.to> wrote:
> 
> > I use a single filter to kill anything I'm not expecting - that is, to
> > trash anything which is Bcc:'d (blind copied, ie the recipients don't know
> > who else got it) that doesn't come from the mailing lists I'm subscribed
> > to, etc.
> 
> I do this too, but it is becoming increasingly ineffective because I am
> getting lots of spam which is directly addressed to me. The "improved"
> spamming software clearly is able to address individually in many cases.

I found that towards the end of last year I received more "direct" spam -
though the worst was 12 in a month, when I also received 106 Bcc: spams in
the same month. I just put some effort into making sure those who spam me
direct *suffer* for it. If they have phone numbers I use the time
difference to make their lives hell. I complain to ISPs, and their ISP's
upstream.

> Any suggestions, apart from the usual addition of new filters?

What I said above; but new filters might do something. You'd probably have
to do some careful examination of the headers to look for common factors.

   Charles
-- 
The Independent on the Web: http://www.independent.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UK climbing: http://www.eclimb.com/ukclimb/         Neutrons for old!

Email with the subject line "Walls list please" for the latest list of UK
climbing walls (125K text file attachment)
                                           
Email with the subject line "sick of spam" for my (free!) advice on
avoiding and autokilling >95% of junk mail.