On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 09:41:50PM +0200, clemensF wrote:
>
> that's dangerous. my experience told me never to answer suspect spammers.
>
As I recall, the argument is that by responding, you confirm that the
e-mail address is valid. I can't say I've dealt with enough spam to
have relevant experience.
--
David Benfell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ 59438240 [e-mail first for access]
---
There are no physicists in the hottest parts of hell, because the
existence of a "hottest part" implies a temperature difference, and
any marginally competent physicist would immediately use this to
run a heat engine and make some other part of hell comfortably cool.
This is obviously impossible.
-- Richard Davisson
[from fortune]
- Re: spam and well known smtp... Markus Stumpf
- Re: spam and well known ... Eric Cox
- Re: spam and well k... John Conover
- Re: spam and we... wolfgang zeikat
- Re: spam and we... clemensF
- Re: spam and we... Eric Cox
- Re: spam and well known smtp ser... Rogerio Brito
- Re: spam and well known smtp... clemensF
- Re: spam and well known smtp servers Cyril Bitterich
- Re: spam and well known smtp servers clemensF
- Re: spam and well known smtp ser... David Benfell
- Re: spam and well known smtp... clemensF
- Re: spam and well known smtp servers Erwin Hoffmann
- Re: spam and well known smtp servers Andre Oppermann
- Re: spam and well known smtp ser... Erwin Hoffmann
- Re: spam and well known smtp... Cerberus - the Guardian of Hades
- Re: spam and well known ... Paul Jarc
