A couple of tidbits: If you're curious how exposed your email address is, just do a google search on it. Nuff said... In a better world, we'd get the backbone providers to blacklist domains that support spam---several sites I know of proudly advertise their spam-friendliness. But we all know the world isn't interested in such a blacklist, even though the spammers are stealing bandwidth, forcing increased equipment costs, and in the case of usenet news, lost data. So, that leaves personal filtering at the user level, and fortunately we have procmail---this is a Linux list, after all. If you don't want spam, learn procmail; simple as that. It'll be a far better use of your time than beating yourself against the wall of complaint to sites that don't care. I'd suggest starting by being skeptical of anything not directly addressed to you. If it's not, develop additional criteria that give you enough confidence to /dev/null it. For mail that IS addressed to you, use procmail's weighted scoring facility to allow intelligent filtering---maybe give ten points for each instance of the word "Free" for starters. Your spam may vary, but when I see the words "We can help" or "Penis" or "Rates have Fallen" or even "blah blah!!!" my spam filters get really aggressive. Again, you may be different, but none of my legitimate correspondents send me html mail, so if it's not addressed to me, and it's html, it's gone. You get the idea, I hope. I sort spam into trash, stuff I'm confident is really spam, and probable-spam, that I'm less confident of. I then study the probables to refine the trash recipes. In over two years of conservative operation, my spam-trash folder has caught exactly one false positive, a christmas card that I could have lived easily without. Next time I go on vacation, I'll feel really comfortable redirecting it to real /dev/null. I don't think I've had a single false negative slip past the probable filters. This stuff just isn't that hard, folks. Cheers, Jim