<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time to talk spam</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oplin.org/meanlaura/archives/47/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oplin.org/meanlaura/archives/47</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:35:08 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.oplin.org/meanlaura/archives/47/comment-page-1#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oplin.org/meanlaura/?p=47#comment-39</guid>
		<description>RE: Owen

I think the problem with think that you&#039;ll never avoid spam is that in most cases people aren&#039;t aware of just how much spam they aren&#039;t getting, as long as their IT people are doing something to filter it out.

Where I work, the spam filtering system cuts out 95 to 97 percent of all mail that comes into our network.  Only 3 to 5 percent of the total mail stream makes it to users.  Some of it is tagged as potential spam, the rest is mostly legit.  The few bits of spam that do slip through make up a fraction of a percent of the total mail stream.  This means that the spam filtering systems, the e-mail best practices, and so on, are all working as well as they can.  It could be a lot worse if those steps weren&#039;t taken to cut down on spam.  So the minimal annoyance of a few messages per day should not invalidate the methods people use to try and cut down on spam.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: Owen</p>
<p>I think the problem with think that you&#8217;ll never avoid spam is that in most cases people aren&#8217;t aware of just how much spam they aren&#8217;t getting, as long as their IT people are doing something to filter it out.</p>
<p>Where I work, the spam filtering system cuts out 95 to 97 percent of all mail that comes into our network.  Only 3 to 5 percent of the total mail stream makes it to users.  Some of it is tagged as potential spam, the rest is mostly legit.  The few bits of spam that do slip through make up a fraction of a percent of the total mail stream.  This means that the spam filtering systems, the e-mail best practices, and so on, are all working as well as they can.  It could be a lot worse if those steps weren&#8217;t taken to cut down on spam.  So the minimal annoyance of a few messages per day should not invalidate the methods people use to try and cut down on spam.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Owen</title>
		<link>http://www.oplin.org/meanlaura/archives/47/comment-page-1#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Owen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.oplin.org/meanlaura/?p=47#comment-38</guid>
		<description>We used to worry so much about things like putting email addresses on web pages without some way to obscure them from email address-scraping robots. Nowadays it seems like, what&#039;s the point? You&#039;ll never avoid getting spam either way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We used to worry so much about things like putting email addresses on web pages without some way to obscure them from email address-scraping robots. Nowadays it seems like, what&#8217;s the point? You&#8217;ll never avoid getting spam either way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
