<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How do you Stop Spam, Viruses and Phishing?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/computers-how-to/how-do-you-stop-spam-viruses-and-phishing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/computers-how-to/how-do-you-stop-spam-viruses-and-phishing/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Scott</title>
		<link>http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/computers-how-to/how-do-you-stop-spam-viruses-and-phishing/#comment-10862</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:01:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/archives/265#comment-10862</guid>
		<description>Sorry, but as I'm sure you know, the only thing that really works 100% effectively is "human verification" on the part of the sender.  

It's not cumbersome at all for the subscriber,  only for the sender of the flagged message to have to verify. If human verification is on, then there's no need to check the folder unless you're expecting something that you haven,t gotten.

I think if you set your email client outgoing mail server to SpamArrest, it whitelists anyone you send to automatically. 

Tell your clients that even if they had a real human go through your mail first they would still have to spot check their work!  

Securence is pretty darn good though, with no recent missing emails...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, but as I&#8217;m sure you know, the only thing that really works 100% effectively is &#8220;human verification&#8221; on the part of the sender.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s not cumbersome at all for the subscriber,  only for the sender of the flagged message to have to verify. If human verification is on, then there&#8217;s no need to check the folder unless you&#8217;re expecting something that you haven,t gotten.</p>
<p>I think if you set your email client outgoing mail server to SpamArrest, it whitelists anyone you send to automatically. </p>
<p>Tell your clients that even if they had a real human go through your mail first they would still have to spot check their work!  </p>
<p>Securence is pretty darn good though, with no recent missing emails&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea</title>
		<link>http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/computers-how-to/how-do-you-stop-spam-viruses-and-phishing/#comment-10860</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:22:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pdxtc.com/wpblog/archives/265#comment-10860</guid>
		<description>I too have found the "Are you human" approach too cumbersome for use...but like you am looking for the end-all.  

I now set all unrouted to :blackhole: - I dont even want to respond to them and let them know it doesnt exist.

Ive found the spam assassin folder to be NOT preferred by the majority of my clients because of the fear of loosing something into it, and then the labor of having to check 2 mail boxes....so they just live with the spam.

I *dont* want to live with it!  My numbers are similar to those you posted, but I end up having to filter them on my end...

I'll be watching your blog here to see if you ever get the answer...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I too have found the &#8220;Are you human&#8221; approach too cumbersome for use&#8230;but like you am looking for the end-all.  </p>
<p>I now set all unrouted to :blackhole: - I dont even want to respond to them and let them know it doesnt exist.</p>
<p>Ive found the spam assassin folder to be NOT preferred by the majority of my clients because of the fear of loosing something into it, and then the labor of having to check 2 mail boxes&#8230;.so they just live with the spam.</p>
<p>I *dont* want to live with it!  My numbers are similar to those you posted, but I end up having to filter them on my end&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll be watching your blog here to see if you ever get the answer&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
