|Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate|
|Scott Dorsey (firstname.lastname@example.org)|
24 Nov 2004 13:40:54 -0500
Dan Lanciani <email@example.com> wrote:|
>firstname.lastname@example.org (jdj) wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:12:34 -0500, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>>> Interesting. I didn't realize that this was considered a bad thing.
>> There are a lot of people who equate receiving spam to stepping in
> This makes no sense. How exactly can you avoid "receiving spam"?
By removing spammers.
If every single one of us here went and injured a single spammer, the
> Obviously. But why should I care? The point of the response is to
The problem is that the number of people in that category is a very
Note that on the whole, the vast majority of messages that your spam
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
|Post Followup Article||Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply|
|Go to Next message: Lisa Minter: "RBOCs Seeking Quick Checkmate On VoIP"|
|Go to Previous message: Forrest Nelson: "Fax Machine Transmission Test"|
|May be in reply to: Monty Solomon: "Trial Shows How Spammers Operate"|
|Next in thread: Dan Lanciani: "Re: Trial Shows How Spammers Operate"|
|TELECOM Digest: Home Page|