Don't fool yourself on this one.
Okay... but maybe too late, yeah?
You can set up a filter that removes (what you consider to be) an acceptable TP:FP ratio, but it won't be effective for long. The Spammers are constantly adjusting their tactics to get around filters. Eventually the noise will take over and you will either lose an unacceptable amount of non-spam email or you will receive an unacceptable amount of spam email.
Perhaps the assessment is too pessimistic? Although individuals, organizations, etc. come and go, here we are years later and most people don't seem to worry too much about SPAM on a day-to-day basis....
You cannot win with filters, period.
Depends on what a "win" is... but if a simple solution that is rooted in nothing more than thinking first (i.e. giving out unique addresses when solicited) & being smart (e.g. filtering known abusers and doing one's part with respect to compliance) results in a little learned and a whole lot of utility then perhaps one can win with filters...
The truth of the matter - that a lot of people seem to either not be aware of or not be concerned with - is that spam is an economic problem. Spammers don't send out spam to piss you off, they send it out to make money. No amount of filtering or criminal prosecution will change that; in fact it generally just increases the total volume of spam that traverses the internet continuously. We all pay for this spam to be transmitted, stored, processed, downloaded, etc, even if we never buy any spamvertised product. We pay for it in that it increases the consumption of internet bandwidth, it increases the consumption of storage at ISPs, and has other downstream impacts as well
Although bandwidth is (essentially) free and SPAM is as much a behavioral problem as it is an economic problem one would tend to agree with the expressed sentiment; the only problem/oversight is that the people who send SPAM also pay! No matter how passionately one feels about the commons the subtlety is that debasement of said commons is everyone's concern; as such, suggesting (or even expecting) that government be involved (e.g. via a CAN-SPAM act and enforcement of said act) is not unreasonable. Perhaps the problem (and its persistence) has something to do with how we weigh our (domestic/national) interests against a global interest when said interest spans geographic/cultural/social/economic boundaries?
If you want to make a difference on spam, you need to go after the only thing spammers care about - money. The most effective tactics ever used against spam have been the ones that prevented spammers from getting paid, nothing else - not even the sum total of all the filters ever installed worldwide - has had an impact even remotely near it.
IMHO we can all do our small part and have a reasonable hope that society will accommodate the same...
