TRAICOVN (NW) wrote: >Under the current description that I have seen, this email is in fact SPAM >because you are not expecting it. > Let's see. You subscribed to the list, so you had to expect to get messages from the list. Beyond that, you didn't expect the individual message--when it arrived, who sent it, what it contained. Guess what? That's how communication works--in fact, that's the *point* of communication. If all messages you received were expected, such that you knew everything about them in advance, they'd be useless. -- /=================================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. | |Chief Scientist |================================================| |eCal Corp. |"How many lifeboats are there?" "None." "Did you| |[EMAIL PROTECTED]|*count* them?" "Twice." | \=================================================================/
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Jon Crowcroft
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Marshall T. Rose
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Michael Mealling
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Marshall T. Rose
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Gary E. Miller
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Marshall T. Rose
- Re: networksorcery.com spam TRAICOVN (NW)
- Re: networksorcery.com sp... Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia
- Re: networksorcery.com sp... John Stracke
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
- Re: networksorcery.com sp... Dave Crocker
- Re: networksorcery.co... Jim Fleming
- Re: networksorcery.co... Paul Ebersman
- Keep on IPv4 address.... Jim Fleming
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Dave Crocker
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
- RE: networksorcery.com spam Christian Huitema
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Vernon Schryver
- Re: networksorcery.com spam Bob Braden
