On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 01:54, jdow wrote: > Heh, I have noticed that for a company that seems firmly based in winning > lawsuits they have trumpted to the news media precious few, like zero, > wins for their supposed copyright suits. Heck, the news media do not even > know they exist. I've never seen them mentioned on the IRIA Security In > The News summaries. That's another nail in their coffin.
Your judgement is flawed, and your methods are reprehensible. By marking Habeas mail positive, you're effectively killing it. So, you might not agree with it, so just give it a 0.00 score, simple. Spammers are gaining new ways of getting their trash into our inboxes everyday, we need all the help we can get. If you opened your eyes, you'd see that it's not escaped the attention of the media: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54645,00.html http://www.internetnews.com/IAR/article.php/2199181 http://www.internetwk.com/breakingNews/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=8600167 http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,884672,00.html http://www.emailsherpa.com/sample.cfm?contentID=2253 FYI they have *fought* and *won* lawsuits against spammers, which is directly impacting the root of the problem (the spammer), instead of just fighting the symptoms. As Bob said, instead of uttering comments about an anti-spam technology that you know nothing about, go and invest some time in learning about what they are doing about the problem, then (and only then) can you have the right to trash them in a public forum. -j -- -jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | spamtrap: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://silverdream.org | p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp key @ http://silverdream.org/~jps/pub.key 01:30:01 up 8 days, 10:50, 11 users, load average: 0.22, 0.22, 0.27
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
