"Indigo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9d6tf5$fkv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9d6tf5$fkv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Argyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Those "tricks" don't have anything to do with fooling SpamCop into
> > reporting something that wasn't in the original spam. Big Difference!
> >
> > SpamCop is NOT going to condone adding the "Reply-to" address to the
> > body of the text.
> >
> Ummm, Mr. D'Minion? I _know_ that. My point was writing the FAQ entry with
> the statement "no altering is allowed". This is not a true statement. My
> brain is too tired right now to come up with better wording. Caffination
> cure is failing.
>
> Indi (jlr *did* ask for comments) go
Yep, I did. Maybe something along "must be unaltered unless stated
otherwise" could fit, but I'm not sure if that wouldn't be confusing the
reader for something that is kind of implied anyway: you have general rules
(i.e.: do not alter the spam) and then you have some exceptions (i.e.: if
..... then do this specific modification).
--
jlr
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-list
