Thanks, Rich. My semi-automatic crap detector hits DELETE when it sees
things like this anyway; but... did you notice that although SamFaz
(or whoever, really) claims to cite a bill passed by the U.S. Congress
he she or it is actually writing from Canada?
I'm not quite sure what to make of that...
On Wed, 2 May 2001, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On 1 May 2001 16:14:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SamFaz Consulting)
> wrote:
>
> ************************************************************************
> Under the Bill s. 1618 title III passed by the 105th US congress
> this letter cannot be considered SPAM as long as the sender includes
> contact information and a method of removal. To be removed, hit reply
> and type ?remove? in the subject line.
> ************************************************************************
>
> Here was a message posted, that my reader saw as an attachment.
> The lines above were at the start of the SPAM.
>
> Ahem. I am about 100% sure that the above is a lie. In multiple
> ways. For instance, Is there a legal definition of SPAM?
<snip, useful advice, because you've all already read it>
-- Don.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald F. Burrill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
348 Hyde Hall, Plymouth State College, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSC #29, Plymouth, NH 03264 603-535-2597
184 Nashua Road, Bedford, NH 03110 603-472-3742
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
