Re: spamblocker

2002-09-05 Thread Anthony E. Greene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05-Sep-2002/18:17 -0500, Mike Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Anthony E. Greene wrote: >> The govt could help in this case. Something simple like requiring valid >> return addresses and honoring requests for removal would go

Re: spamblocker

2002-09-05 Thread Mike Burger
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Anthony E. Greene wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 05-Sep-2002/20:43 -, Mike Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> Don't set it to silent. Set it to bounce the damn stuff to [EMAIL PROTECTED], > >>

Re: spamblocker

2002-09-05 Thread Anthony E. Greene
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05-Sep-2002/20:43 -, Mike Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> Don't set it to silent. Set it to bounce the damn stuff to [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> the US FTC. I just read that they're only having about 10k/day

Re: spamblocker

2002-09-05 Thread Mike Burger
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Thursday 05 September 2002 12:54 am, you is done writ: > > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:18:33AM +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote: > > > > > > IT IS GREAT!!! I've been spam free for a week now, whereas I was getting > > > AT LEAST 10 per day. > > > I've set it up t

Re: spamblocker

2002-09-05 Thread Mark
On Thursday 05 September 2002 12:54 am, you is done writ: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 11:18:33AM +0800, Edward Dekkers wrote: > > > > IT IS GREAT!!! I've been spam free for a week now, whereas I was getting > > AT LEAST 10 per day. > I've set it up to silent (no nasty letters to ISPs or bounce me