Lately, spammers have been particularly impudent due to the absence of spam filtering by providers based on DNS Black Lists.
I'm curious as to whether you or your provider filters mail and if not, what the reason might be.

It has been a week since SpamAssassin was installed for general use. Rather than being deleted, emails marked as spam are moved to the junkmail box and can be easily deleted with just three clicks in WebMail, unless there is anything important among them. It effectively removes nearly all spam.

 Spamassassin had a test run of around two months without any problems, so it comes recommended. The best part is that emails won't be cut off abruptly if the mailer is on some RBL. Instead, a certain number of points are assigned to the email based on more than 900 criteria. If the threshold for point accumulation is exceeded, then the email is classified as spam.

My provider been filtering emails since the beginning, you can't even imagine how many spam you get if you working 24/7 on an unprotected server, at least protecting software is not that expensive so i reccomend to everyone start using it as soon as possible

A Northern California district judge has signed a temporary order that prevents the SpamCop system from filtering messages sent by OptinRealBig.com, a notorious spammer office. IronPort Systems, which operates SpamCop, received the ruling last Tuesday, and its lawyers challenged the judge's decision, arguing that the filter ban interferes with the normal operation of the company and violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to free expression without state-imposed restrictions.

The temporary ban on SpamCop was issued by a Northern California court at the request of Scott Richter, who owns Optin and is known as the "King of Spam." Richter sued IronPort and SpamCop, accusing them of disrupting his business by blocking the electronic garbage he sends. Additionally, Richter claimed that SpamCop's refusal to reveal the names of people who complained about spam sent through OptinRealBig.com channels could lead to misuse of the Can-SPAM Act, which allows people to remove themselves from mailing lists.

OptinRealBig.com's lawyers maintain that the company has the right to handle complaints independently. The resolution prohibits SpamCop from forwarding spam complaints involving Optin or its subsidiaries to third parties, including ISPs, and from removing email addresses from complaints submitted by the company's clients regarding Optin's activity.

One possibility is that the service provider may have encountered technical challenges in implementing and maintaining an effective DNS Black List-based spam filter. This could be due to the dynamic nature of spam sources and the need for constant updates to the blacklists, which might require significant resources and expertise to manage effectively.

Another consideration is the potential trade-off between stringent spam filtering and the risk of false positives, where legitimate emails are mistakenly flagged as spam. Service providers often strive to find a balance between minimizing spam and ensuring that genuine communication reaches users without disruption.

Moreover, there may be strategic business considerations at play. Some providers might prioritize other aspects of their services over aggressive spam filtering, especially if they have competing priorities such as improving user experience, expanding their customer base, or managing costs.

In addition, the legal and ethical implications of aggressively filtering emails, including the potential impact on freedom of communication and privacy, are important factors that providers may need to navigate carefully.
I advocate for a holistic approach to addressing the challenges of spam filtering. This includes leveraging advanced technologies, employing sophisticated algorithms for pattern recognition, and continuously adapting to new spam tactics. It also involves raising awareness about best practices for email security among users and collaborating with industry stakeholders to combat spam at a systemic level.