On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:42:13 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
> I don't see this as a "threat of reprisal" as you put it.
> The 'spammer' is simply stating that if you disrupt the email
> account [EMAIL PROTECTED] then the only thing that could
> happen is that it will be made more difficult for people to
> unsubscribe.
> If for example someone breaks into 123india.com and destroys
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] then it wont do much good to the attacker,
> or anyone else receiving the mass messages, this is not through
> a action taken by the 'spammer' but results because of the destruction
> of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The 'spammer' is simply saying that to cool down the hotheads who
> get pissed of at being spammed and decide to do something bad to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The result is a "reprisal", as I understand the meaning of the term.
The bad effect will follow as a result of a what the spammer has designed
and warned you about.
By your reasoning, it would follow that if someone should leave a
destructive device on your doorstep and you attempt to dismantle it, and
it blows up and kills everyone in your home, then the bomber is not at
fault as long as he leaves a note on his device to warn you about the
anti-tamper circuit.
All the best,
Sam Heywood
