Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

A place for polls.

Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Yes, change SG default to unlimited
3
33%
Yes, change SG default to 100
3
33%
No, leave SG default at 20
3
33%
Who cares?
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 9

Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby ronbarak » Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:48 pm

I find that using SG has reduced SPAM to negligible quantities.
Thus, it means that on any new SG address created, I have to go and change it to unlimited (by entering "." in the 'Exclusive Sender' field).
Having to do this for each new SG address becomes irritating after a few hundred addresses.

What say you to changing the default of SG addresses to being without limit?
(Of course, if one finds that a certain address starts being used by spammers, only then one'd login to SG, and set that address' 'Max Count' to 0,
but - as I said, this becomes a very rare instance after one starts using SG)
ronbarak
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:04 am

Re: Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby lwc » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:14 pm

Last edited by lwc on Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lwc
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:09 am

Re: Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby ronbarak » Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:03 pm

lwc wrote:http://bbs.spamgourmet.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1378

I'm getting:
Not Found
The requested URL /phpbb/viewtopic.php was not found on this server.
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

when trying to follow phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=1378
ronbarak
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:04 am

Re: Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby lwc » Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:24 pm

Sorry, try again, I've fixed my link.

And if you know an URL doesn't work, please don't quote it...
lwc
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 9:09 am

Re: Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby ronbarak » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:18 pm

You answered in the link you mentioned above:
Judging from past admin statements, your assumptions are wrong. They said Spamgourmet wouldn't survive without that limit.
With that said, why don't you just use automated exclusive senders (read the site's FAQ) instead of creating this poll?

  • I sent a test message to the automated exclusive senders address test.exclusive.comverse@9ox.net, and I see that that message was message 13 of 18, so I fail to see how using an automated exclusive senders will save me the trip to SG to set the max count as with a regular SG addess. Was what I did in my test different than what you suggested in the link?
  • In the link you wrote that the admin stated: "Spamgourmet wouldn't survive without that limit." Can you point me to the place where the admin explains why SG would not survive? I tried to come out with a logical reason, but failed.
ronbarak
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:04 am

Re: Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby josh » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:01 pm

search the bbs for "dead man's switch"
josh
 
Posts: 1354
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:28 pm

Re: Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

Postby ronbarak » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:51 pm

Thanks, Josh: now I understand the rational.
ronbarak
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 10:04 am


Return to Polls

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron