Page 1 of 1

Should 'Max Count' default be changed to unlimited?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:48 pm
by ronbarak
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)

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

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:14 pm
by lwc

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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:03 pm
by ronbarak
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

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

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 10:24 pm
by lwc
Sorry, try again, I've fixed my link.

And if you know an URL doesn't work, please don't quote it...

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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:18 pm
by ronbarak
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.

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

PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:01 pm
by josh
search the bbs for "dead man's switch"

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

PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:51 pm
by ronbarak
Thanks, Josh: now I understand the rational.

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

PostPosted: Sat May 04, 2019 8:35 pm
by SG-Fan
Gradually, more and more websites block their login for users, who have Spamgourmet e-mails. I guess, they don't want to rely on 'Max count'. In order to improve Spamgourmet's reputation, I vote for default:=unlimited .

The change would require further consecutive changes. They keep up this "dead man switch" principle, to avoid unnecessary traffic by unused accounts. Instead of counting mails, the counter might count senders. Or users pay money to Spamgourmet. Theese are dreams of the future. For the day, I appreciate Spamgourmet as it is.