At 15:49 on 12/19/2000 +1100, "Josh G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I doubt it. Why do you say that? They replied to a message from an individual and it honored the reply-to so it went to the list. That's why we got spammed. Seems pretty simple. I'm certainly not debating that the original message was definitely not a spam. Clearly znet is on crack. But my point is that we shouldn't be that surprised the reply went to the list. > 'sides, I love the way it's set up, otherwise you either have > to edit out peoples names by hand when you reply, or you get two > copies of any messages that are in response to your questions. This > way it works nicely. Eh. Easily filtered. The current setup is wrong, IMHO, but it's not my call and I don't mind that much. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Josh Wilmes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: SPAM: Re: [plex86] Performance enhancement: elminiating mode > and co > > > > > > In all fairness, that is no-doubt due to the somewhat unorthodox setting > > of the Reply-To header on this list. > > > > --Josh > > > > At 20:32 on 12/18/2000 PST, Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Content-Disposition: inline > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 08:20:06PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Below is a SPAM received by a customer of zNET Internet Services. > > > > It originated from your site, used an address referencing your > > > > site, used your company for connectivity, or in some way involved > > > > you. Please deal with this person according to any AUP's you > > > > have. Thanks for your time and attention to this problem. > > > > > > Am I the only one who finds it to be a bit ironic that zNET is > > > spamming the Plex86 mailing list by reposting mailing list messages as > > > spam? > > > > > > --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn > > > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > > > Content-Disposition: inline > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) > > > Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org > > > > > > iD8DBQE6PuTjdtqQf66JWJkRAjqMAKCcTKYRv9eiNFP2v1sCG/gmJ7KHCQCgv2NQ > > > CsN97KK+nD34l2d3/JQ0Er4= > > > =5TH0 > > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > --kVXhAStRUZ/+rrGn-- > > > > > > > > > > >
