Existing software can't do it.
} (Granted,
} spammers might eventually take to including the header in their spam. But
} as far as I know they're not doing so now.)
They are doing so now.
} This would exempt FAQs and
} other legitimate announcements (I wonder in particular how badly
} newsgroup-creation announcements might be getting hit) nicely, without
} requiring group-specific exceptions.
People have to stay away from the idea that FAQs and "legitimate
announcements" have any more claim to legitimacy (read: exemption from
spam definitions) than anything else. The only reason why spam cancellation
is accepted is that the spam definition completely avoids confering
legitimacy or lack of it on the content. If we exempt "legitimate
announcements", then who decides? Everything is legitimate in at least
one person's eyes.
There have been many times where I've agonized over the fact that some
bit of material is for something I consider highly legitimate, but,
it hit the spam thresholds. If it hits the spam threshold, it has to
go.
There have been a few go-rounds on redefining spam by factoring in
followup-to. However, that would only serve to loosen up the definitions
such that spammers would be able to get away with far more than they do
already. Most people already consider the spam thresholds too high,
rather than too low.
-- Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated. Cold but happy, please pass the thermos!For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org