"On average, a spammer needs response rates of only 0.1% to make sending worthwhile."
Christ. The levels of spam in my various in-boxes are now reaching insane levels. That'll teach me to join in discussions in the public/private sphere.
The Apple Mail thing clearly doesn't work, for the v.basic reason Tom makes clear in the comments here. These kind of percentage games (<0.1%=success) make it very difficult for coherent responses - it strikes me that the anti-spam software needs to take a similarly viral, marginal approach to this battle. Sorry for the war-like language (there's a lot of it about), but a smarter pre-emptive strike perhaps? Currently, it just looks at incoming, and tries to deflect back - which is no good if the originating target isn't actually a target. I know I could employ the cloaking device of a nospam mailbox, but that's hassle. Isn't this the kind of thing software should be smarter at?
Fortune.com: There's a Killer App on the Loose--But I'm on the Case
