"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:uIudnZzLTewiu2vbnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "Bill Ridgeway" wrote ...
>> In what file is the Norton AntiSpam Allowed List and Blocked List kept
>> please? I would like to make sure these are backed up so, if I need to
>> re-install, I don't have to build up the lists again.
>
>
> You should only have a dozen, or much less, entries in your allow/block
> lists. Blocking spammers based on their e-mail address is stupid.
> Spammers don't use their real e-mail address. Spammers (and their
> zombies) change their e-mail address everytime them spew. You should
> already have a rule to accept e-mails from known senders (i.e., those in
> your contacts lists or address books depending on your UNNAMED e-mail
> program). You might whitelist some newsletters in your NAS allow list.
> But blacklisting spammers is only performed by those ignorant to how spam
> gets sent. Thousands of e-mail address for *past* spams is worthless
> against *new* spams.
>
> I haven't used Norton products in a long time (many, many years). When I
> did, they used registry entries but they were encrypted. Copying and
> importing those encrypted registry entries under a different instance of
> Windows won't work because the key used to do the encrypting is different.
> So keep the list short so that it is actually effective for the few number
> that are listed there and that you'll remember (or can record for later
> manual reentry).

Every day a couple of hundred or so emails are correctly recognised as spam
and sent to the Norton AntiSpam box leaving only a few emails which have to
sent there manually so Norton AntiSpam is relatively efficient. Given that
I have just over 1,000 (in over a year) entries in the Blocked List many of
them, at least, are used over again. This belies the assertions that <<You
should only have a dozen, or much less, entries in your allow/block lists>>
and <<Thousands of e-mail address for *past* spams is worthless against
*new* spams>>. All these entries have a use even though some may now be
redundant and not worth identifying as such.

I am still looking at identifying the source so I may copy back to the hard
drive if I should have to do a complete software re-install.

Bill Ridgeway