On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 02:16, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 04:41:18PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 10:35:29AM -0500, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins wrote: > > > I actually have a line for that addres in my filters that catches both > > > the direct spam and the stuff that comes here. The only address I've > > > been bothered to do that for (thouhg once I get a few minutes to > > > understand one I found that checks for 90% 8 bit high characters . . . > > > Nevertheless, these mails are fairly big, so this is annoying... > > I never notice the size, sitting on top of a fat connectio :) > > Oh, and unlike everything else which goes to a spam folder, his go to > /dev/null . . .
... which gives him the pleasure of being copied from buffer to buffer, finally ending up in kernel space, only to then be dropped ... far more than he deserves! Why not give him a reply from /dev/zero instead? ;) Or convince him to connect to your credit-card details, cleverly disguised as the CHARGEN port of a kick-arse server? Tell him it's encrypted, and to get it he first has to download the *whole* file ;) Notice how discussing the spam takes up more of our time and bandwidth than the original spam did? =) > hawk Darren
