«

> IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING SPAM
>
> We would like to inform you of a change to our spam and anti virus protection policy.
>
> As spam volumes continue to increase, the percentage of incoming email that is classified as spam is also increasing. To address this issue, clear.net will be reducing the holding time for spam from the current 7 days to 3 days.
>
> This change will apply from 28th June 2006.
>
> From 28th of June all email we classify as spam will be held in your SPAM folder for 3 days. Any message older than 3 days will automatically be deleted from this mailbox. This change will simply mean that your spam folder will not fill up as fast and you won't be using your mailbox quota as quickly.
>
> This change is made at clear.net and you do not need to do anything. Remember, you can still empty your spam folder by logging in to WebMail, and deleting the spam folder.
>
> Please do not reply to this email.
>
> Regards
>
> The clear.net team

Surely forcing people to scan a webmail interface for spam constitutes a Cruel
and Unusual Punishment and is thus a warcrime.

On a related note I opted out of the Paradise spam detection service and
expected to see a marked increase in the volume of spam hitting the mailbox for
that account. Instead I saw no change except that nothing ended up in the spam
folder on their awful webmail interface.

Can anyone else confirm this behaviour before I start wasting time with their
helpdesk ?

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:11:17 +1200, Mark Robinson wrote:

>> IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING SPAM
>>
>> We would like to inform you of a change to our spam and anti virus
>> protection policy.
>>
>> As spam volumes continue to increase, the percentage of incoming email
>> that is classified as spam is also increasing. To address this issue,
>> clear.net will be reducing the holding time for spam from the current 7
>> days to 3 days.

HOW does that address the problem of incoming spam?

All it would do is to force people to check their email at least once
every three days by using the inanely stupid process of having to check
email via a website.

Spam will still be turning up.

What would be better would be if Clear started to forward the spam to some
place like SpamCop instead of just deleting it.


MaHogany

--
The Queen's Mother: "Well I don't know what all you queens are
doing, but this old Queen wants a drink."

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:11:17 +1200, Mark Robinson wrote:

>> IMPORTANT MESSAGE REGARDING SPAM
>>
>> We would like to inform you of a change to our spam and anti virus protection policy.
>>
>> As spam volumes continue to increase, the percentage of incoming email that is classified as spam is also increasing. To address this issue, clear.net will be reducing the holding time for spam from the current 7 days to 3 days.
>>
>> This change will apply from 28th June 2006.
>>
>> From 28th of June all email we classify as spam will be held in your SPAM folder for 3 days. Any message older than 3 days will automatically be deleted from this mailbox. This change will simply mean that your spam folder will not fill up as fast and you won't be using your mailbox quota as quickly.
>>
>> This change is made at clear.net and you do not need to do anything. Remember, you can still empty your spam folder by logging in to WebMail, and deleting the spam folder.
>>
>> Please do not reply to this email.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> The clear.net team
>
> Surely forcing people to scan a webmail interface for spam constitutes a Cruel
> and Unusual Punishment and is thus a warcrime.
Do telstra not offer imap services? All it says is that you *can* empty
your spam folder in this manner.I cannot believe that it's the only way
>
> On a related note I opted out of the Paradise spam detection service and
> expected to see a marked increase in the volume of spam hitting the
> mailbox for that account. Instead I saw no change except that nothing
> ended up in the spam folder on their awful webmail interface.
I think they both use brightmail, which will pre-filter everything. So it
looks like it just dumps what it considers spam instead? Love it!
>
> Can anyone else confirm this behaviour before I start wasting time with
> their helpdesk ?

and chew more bandwidth? thats a great idea =)

"MaHogany" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 18:11:17 +1200, Mark Robinson
>
snip
>
> What would be better would be if Clear started to forward the spam to some
> place like SpamCop instead of just deleting it.
>
>
> MaHogany
>
> --