Anybody got any thoughts on 'retaliation' ? Perhaps there's too much mail as
it is, so filling their reply address mailbox with c*ap would be a tad
irresponsible?
Answers on a postcard
One thing I thought of is responding to the "remove" address but with other than
your own email address,
Neil Smith wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:55:45
From: "Dale Mentzer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Spammer service ad
I can confirm receipt of that spam from that bulk email lot.
The fact that it came to Dale as well suggests that either we have both
subscribed to some site on the web
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:08:45 +0100, Neil Smith wrote:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 16:55:45
From: "Dale Mentzer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Spammer service ad
I can confirm receipt of that spam from that bulk email lot.
The fact that it came to Dale as well suggests that either we have both
J. J. Young wrote:
Sam Heywood and I conducted an amusing correspondence a few months
ago, with convoluted attempts to avoid direct use of the term
"mailbomb" (Oops, I did it again). We'll have to come to an agreement
over disguising troublesome terms. Reverse the letter order?
On 19 Aug 00 at 0:43, J. J. Young wrote:
Sam Heywood and I conducted an amusing correspondence a few months
ago, with convoluted attempts to avoid direct use of the term
"mailbomb" (Oops, I did it again). We'll have to come to an agreement
over disguising troublesome terms. Reverse
On 18 Aug 00 at 18:08, Neil Smith wrote:
Anybody got any thoughts on 'retaliation' ? Perhaps there's too much mail as
it is, so filling their reply address mailbox with c*ap would be a tad
irresponsible? Answers on a postcard
Well, if it were junk snail mail, I would suggest putting the
On 15 Aug 00 at 15:55, Pete wrote:
In three months online at this location, I have recieved only *one*
letter that I considered to be spam. IIRC it was posted to the list by
someone who thought other listers might find it useful ;-) While using
the Aptiva all last year I found the "spam factor"
