Re: [Evolution] Replying to spam

[Ralf Mardorf <ralf mardorf alice-dsl net>]

On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 06:25 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 10:49 +0100, Pete Biggs wrote:
> > > > > Andre, it's better, if we don't reply to spam, to enable easier and more
> > > > > secure filtering of junk mails.
> > > > I think it's not better per se, and I missed the implementation details
> > > > of "enabling easier and more secure filtering" here...
> > > It could happen that replying to spam will increase the false rejection
> > > and/or false accept rate.
> > To be honest I think the level of non-caught spam I get just from
> > posting to this list (or any public list) far outweighs the noise
> > associated with replying to spam here! :-)
>
> Really?  I do not believe this at all - I've been using this same e-mail
> address - unobfusticated [awilliam whitemice org] - to post to dozens of
> lists since the nineties.  And the level of SPAM I receive [unfiltered]
> is quite low, barely rising to the level of nuisance.
>
> There have been a couple of case studies - and what I read indicates
> there is no correlation to SPAM and posting to public lists.  Far and
> away, way past anything else, the driver for SPAM found in those case
> studies was using an e-mail address to sign up for corporate services /
> discounts.   Addressing anything else for a 'SPAM problem' is chasing
> the mouse in circles around the dragon; it does little but amuse the
> dragon.

Sorry for my broken English. I misunderstood Pete. I agree with you
Adam. There's more talk about spam, than spam. But as I already said,
perhaps talking about spam (from time to time, not always when a spam
mail comes through a list) helps to keep the amount of spam low.

However, if I should continue this discussion, I'll reply off-list.