> Actually, it would hurt my wallet, and waste my time, compounding the > loss > already incurred by receiving the spam in the first place.
But it's worth your time to forward spam to everyone on the full-disclosure mailing list. > > Also, if you really believed that it might come from his campaign, > I didn't say that. Then what benefit was there to forwarding it along? > > Simply postulating that it's his (considering spamming is not a nice > I didn't do that. Then I apologize if I read too much into your email. > But now you mention it - why would a spammer > divert precious bandwidth from sending profitable spam? That's gonna > cost him money. Either the spammer donated his resources for free, > or someone paid - and who is that most likely to be? You? Me? Ron > Paul? Hilary Clinton? You decide. I'd rather wait for some form of evidence. Right now all that is available is gossip. > > thing) without even checking his record on such a topic, and claiming > > "newsworthy" isn't quite... nice. > Check out Wired's take on it here: > http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/paul_bot If you read the article from Wired, *they* contacted Paul's campaign, and performed some basic investigation. That's rather different from forwarding a spam message on to a mailing list. > It seems the net is somewhat overrun with his apologists. At what point has anyone acted as his apologist (recently, on this thread)? I've see others clarifying positions he's taken on particular issues/votes, and I've questioned your lack of investigation before forwarding the message on to everyone. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
