I think that it is about time for at least couple of you to take some time off and go to the beach or see a movie or something... Or, maybe you can go to the gym and paste a picture of your favorite spam king on the punching bag? :)
...back to business... > jdow wrote: ...well, a lot of stuff... see earlier posts... ...and... John Rudd mentioned: >(For all of you people who like to send a "undisclosed recipients" >message to all of your friends: yes, I'm calling you spammers, and I am >unapologetic about it. If you don't like it, don't send me email.) message for John Rudd, Actually it is extremely more rude, inappropriate, amateurish, and unprofessional to reveal everyone's e-mail addresses to ALL the recipients. For example, if my friend sends me a joke e-mail and he sends this to all of his other friends, I do NOT want my e-mail address so easily accessible by the others because my circle of friends may not be the exact same as his. Also, this opens up more addresses to zombie attacks where the addresses are harvested by a zombie or virus right out of a persons' e-mail client program. Also, your header fields idea is ideal, but I expect that a lot of legit mail will not follow those standards for years to come. message for jdow, >Can you cut deep code while you are interrupted >every 10 minutes by a telephone call or an office visitor? This is exactly why if, given the choice, I'd prefer to be "cold-called" with a non-bulk personalized unsolicited e-mail rather than being interrupted by a visitor or phone call. The former I can look at a time of my own choosing, the later demands my particular time that moment. Therefore, treating both as being just as evil doesn't help. Also, I know that most people hate spam... even viciously hate spam... but I don't think there is anyone in the world who hates spam as much as you... (except for, maybe, John Rudd.) I applaud both of your tenacity in your fight against spam... but do you really think that the average user is going to be soooooo offended by the particular message that I originally described on this thread if received only once? --Rob McEwen
