Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:11:58 +0000, Colin B. replied to a spammer with: > >> Let's see if I get this right. >> >> You create a website for a subject that you know nothing about. Then you >> try to solicit content in a bunch of programming language newsgroups. >> >> Wow, that's pretty pathetic, even for a google-groups poster! >> >> Begone with you. > > You know, my ISP did a pretty good job of recognizing the original post as > spam, and dropped it, so I never even saw it until your post came along. > So I wonder, who is more pathetic -- the spammer, who at least is hoping > to make money from his rudeness, or idiots who try to reason with spammers > AND include the spam in their reply? > > Thanks a lot Colin, I really appreciate you finding a way to bypass the > spam filtering. Not. > > (You know, if I were a spammer, I would disguise my spam as an indignant > response to spam, thus guaranteeing a vastly greater audience.) > > Colin, if that doesn't convince you to STOP ENGAGING SPAMMERS IN > DISCUSSION, no matter how witty you think your reply is, let me > point out that by rudely including the text of the spam in your > post, you are associating your name and email address with spam. That > might not be such a good thing to do as more and more people use Bayesian > filtering.
Oh, hush. What fun is life when you can't unleash your venom on a spammer who probably will never read it? Take a chill pill and enjoy the fun. -- Lew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
