And, also like I said, I'm not spending a buttload of money on some spam filtering software.

If there were a free option that worked reasonably well, I would probably consider it. But, at the moment, the Open Source stuff isn't up to the level of quality I would like.

# -----Original Message----- # From: IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com # [mailto:IMail_Forum-owner@list.ipswitch.com]On Behalf Of R. Scott Perry # Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:28 AM # To: IMail_Forum@list.ipswitch.com # Subject: Re: ORBSSRC: RE: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Time to fix "Refuse NULL # <> Senders" option! # # # # >To be honest, I am willing to take the risk to block the spam. # # I've just checked some of our spamtraps from 05/01/2001 through # today. During that time, we received just 1 spam (going to 4 of our # spamtraps) using the NULL sender. That's well under 1% of all the spam # that we get. # # Is it worth breaking the RFCs, losing E-mail, and getting postmasters mad # enough to block you mail, in order to reduce less than 1% of spam? # # >The owners of the company I work for are extremely offended by graphic # >"Enlarge your # >penis" e-mails and such. # # For that, you may want to use IMail's built-in filters. Or, if # you want to # get really tough on spam, you could use our software (the one # spam that was # sent from <> failed 2 of the Declude tests). # # >And, since it seems, mostly the pornographic # >spammers are the main ones that use the null sender mail blasters, it's # >worth it to avoid the aggravation. # # Remember, too, that you are letting these criminals take away # your ability # to know that mail you send is not delivered. # # I do find the porno spam to be the worst, as there are about 1 *billion* # porno spams a year sent to children. So I can certainly sympathize. # # -Scott # # Declude: Anti-spam and Anti-virus solutions for IMail. http://www.declude.com