We get far less spam on the list than I get on any of my email accounts.

I, for one, would rather live with what we get, than risk posts getting bounced because they don't pass an overly aggressive spam filter.

Art

P.S. If anyone "accidentally" clicked on the spam in question, did you also see that all of the shown examples just happened to live in your neighborhood? Evidence of quite good programming techniques! ------- On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:24:27 -0400, Howard Schreier <hs AT dc-sug DOT org> <schreier.junk.mail@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:21:58 +0530, Ajay ohri <ohri2007@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > >>Hey Jack, >> >>Comments below. >> >>Ajay > >[snip] > >>>> >>>> I disagree that technically there can not be an automated spam filter. >>>> Just like it is programmed to subscribe /unsubscribe for certain >>>> words.It can be programmed to delete spam. >>>> >>> >>> Many smart people have tried to solve the spam problem, and failed. >> >> >>Lets be realistic, and aim for reduction rather than elimination here. > >So that let's say 100 spam messages might be aimed at SAS-L each day, with >perhaps half a dozen getting through and the other 90+ intercepted. What >makes you think that is not the status quo? > >[snip]