Well Tim, since you did not ridicule or insult, I'll respond. Something you seem to have misunderstood from the beginning, or incorrectly reasoned your way towards: Neither myself nor any post that I have read have sugested that any form of attempting to avoid violations mitigates violations. I've expressed that I don't believe that filters can be 100%. I've also expressed that I don't believe that people may be 100%. Yes, I acknowledge your example of your filtering and your monitoring never causing or seeing a violation. By the same token an automatic filter, though not flawless, may not ever pass messages that violate the regulations. It all depends on what's thrown at it. I won't continue in the debate of what you call "business" emails because we disagree and that's that. I've exressed enough about emails source lists, spam filtering, etc, to greatly reduce or eliminate the volume of those type of emails if that is what the recipient control op desires. I've expressed that I think some emails may get by that shouldn't, just as cursing sometimes gets on the air by phone. I never suggested nor do I now that the inevitable is mitigating. I'll accept introducing the word integrity in here if used as the control op not dodging his responsibility to be held accountable for violations. I don't believe that pleas about "attempting not to violate" mitigate anything, not any more than an op caught transmitting spurious signals pleading that he tried to transmit a clean signal mitigates the fact that he didn't. Here's where we disagree. You may have one ham who has test equipment that allows him to be 100% positive that his signal is clean. Then you may have another who has no test equipment (probably a great many hams). Can the latter ever be 100% certain that his signal is always clean before getting on the air, maybe even while on the air? The latter does his best (which can't be much) to ensure a clean signal, but if he doesn't, he can't plead that he didn't have the right test gear. The point is that the op with no test gear may transmit spurious signals, but until, if, he does, he is not violating the regs and is certainly not a scofflaw. May he be crossing his fingers and hoping that his signal is always clean? Sure! However that is not a problem as long as his signal is always clean! This op is not trying to get away with anything, and no one would suggest that he must never get on the air because he can't be 100% certain that his signal is clean at all times. Most ops can't be certain because they go by what their rig is telling them, but that is not a proof about what is radiating, especially if the rig is malfunctioning. If something should happen to go awry with his rig and he starts transmitting spurious signals, he might not know until someone tells him. If it's another op, then he just gets off the air and addresses the problem. If it's a neighbor suddenly complaining about RFI, he does the same thing, perhaps first getting some on air checks. If it happens to be the FCC, then he is in violation and he is accountable. It may also be that this never happens! Is all of this a "me" view of things? If so, then it's always been that way because what I stated above has always been true in ham radio. I never in anyway quantified any number of violations as acceptable. I said some violations are inevitable, just as with hams transmitting spurious signals. It happens. This is not accepting, nor is it in anyway mitigating violations, but is just accepting reality. Just as a great many hams cannot be 100% certain that their signals are clean, no one could claim that any automatic filtering could be 100% effective. Neither of those being 100% is a reason to be kept off the air. Your belief that using filters that are known up front not to be 100% is an indication of a lack of integrity, that they're going on the air with something that they know is going to fail. No, they don't know it will fail, they know it's possible that it will fail because it is not 100%, just as a great many ops get on the air without being 100% certain that their signals are clean. Acknowledging that it will likely happen to some ops does not mean that it will happen to all. Some ops with no way of being 100% certain that their signals are clean may operate for 50 years without ever having transmitted a spurious signal. Others may be in violation by transmitting a spurious signal the day they get on the air. Would you deny the air to all ops who can't be 100% certain of clean signals, knowing that it's inevitable that some are going to transmit spurious signals at sometime and be in violation? Now consider that op who has everything that is needed to be 100% certain that his signal is clean. One day he misses a reading, some measurement is incorrect and for whatever reason he fails to notice. He gets on the air and gets a report that tells him he is transmitting spurious signals. Maybe and in all probability another op tells him, but it's always possible that it's the FCC who tells him. He's still in violation, still accountable, even though he has everything needed to be 100%. He is human and he can make mistakes. Integrity for ARS is ops accepting responsibility for their transmissions. Lack of intergrity would be trying to squirm out from under that accountability, and I never once suggested otherwise. Mike PS: Merry Christmas!