Dean, I'm not gonna feed the troll. The bottom line is that spam filters are not 100% effective and anti-spam protocols are not 100% effective either, in the same way that your car is not 100% fuel effective. The reason is pretty much the same. Thus, your indefatigable assertion that there are no technical solutions for spam strikes me as irrelevant. We all work with and improves things that will never be 100% effective. The good part of this is that we shan't run out of work ;-) If you don't agree with any of the above, pls email me in PVT. Cheers, Ed Gerck Dean Anderson wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Ed Gerck wrote: > > > > > > > Dean Anderson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Ed Gerck wrote: > > > > > > > Dean Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Ed Gerck wrote: > > > > > > What information theory says is that the probability of detecting > > > > > > spam is less than 100%. > > > > > > > > > > No, information theory doesn't say that at all. > > > > > > > > Sure it says, and that's why a spam filter will never be 100% > > > > effective. I guess we agreed on this before ;-) > > > > > > I think you must have missed my message noting our disagreement. > > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg24213.html > > > > Let me make sure. You think then that a spam filter can be 100% > > efficient? If you do, please log off and go sell it. If you > > don't then I agree with you. > > No, that isn't what I said. You need to re-read the message. It is > fairly clear. > > --Dean