sday, June 18, 2003 1:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spammers aren't the only ones who can teach. (was
> We TEACH you how to ...)
>
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Sorry Dave, I have to disagree with you here. As an admin who provi
[SNIP]
>
> Sorry Dave, I have to disagree with you here. As an admin who provides
> in-house support, I lose respect for the average human being. I cannot
> tell you how many times I have to remove virii, reinstall s/w or entire
> OSen, or remove spyware. These are adult who repeat their actions
Jim Ford said:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:56:40PM -0400, Rick Macdougall wrote:
>
>> If everyone did that once a day, they might get the clue that the
>> majority of their email isn't getting through (especially those
>> clueless newbie spammers whos spam this list).
>
> They're anything but clu
> They're anything but clueless. The probably know that some users on this
list
> whitelist anything from lists.sourceforge.net - like me for instance!
I'm sure that's quite true for most spammers but not all. I had to
terminate someone's account once because they fell for the spam that said,
"If
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:56:40PM -0400, Rick Macdougall wrote:
> If everyone did that once a day, they might get the clue that the
> majority of their email isn't getting through (especially those clueless
> newbie spammers whos spam this list).
They're anything but clueless. The probably kno
Steve Prior wrote:
When I used to get telemarketing phone calls there were times when I was
actually interested in the category of product being called about, but I
always told the caller that it was too bad they had called because I am
actually interested in such a product, but have a policy of ne
> It's actually not that bad...tastes like pork...but a little stringy.
> Whoops! I've said too much!
Hmm, pork... politicians... spammers... do I see a connection?
> ...and this coming from a vegetarian. I should be ashamed of myself.
Not really, it's okay to splurge... wait ... nevermind :-
> But _does_ it really hurt them. They don't get any feedback - users that
> install spam filters wouldn't have responded to to the spam anyway, other
> than deleting it manually. The only difference is that the deletion
process is
> automated by a spam filter. I reckon spammers don't really care a
Benjamin A. Shelton said:
>> Aw, can't we gather up enough $$ to buy out a congresscritter? I'm
>> sure that we can get hunting licenses extended to spammers & those
>> that buy from spammers... can we try? Please?
>
>
> I like the hunting license part. Although I hear that they don't taste
> part
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 01:23:47PM -0700, Jeremy Oddo wrote:
> As I've stated before, I've cut down the amount of spam actually getting
> to it's intended destination by over 98% by using SA. That's gotta be
> hurting the spammers :)
But _does_ it really hurt them. They don't get any feedback -
> "BJ" == Ben Johansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BJ> LOL!
BJ> Teaching implies that the student will learn and put the learning into
BJ> practice.
BJ> How can there be learnin' if their dead behind the shed? ;-)
You assume the student is the one behind the shed.
> Aw, can't we gather up enough $$ to buy out a congresscritter? I'm sure
> that we can get hunting licenses extended to spammers & those that buy
> from spammers... can we try? Please?
Well, it was said once by Mark Twain that here in the United States, "We
have the best politicians money can buy
erver Reseller
http://www.pcforge.com/AltN.htm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jeremy Oddo
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [SAtalk] spammers aren't the only ones who can teach. (was
We TEACH
> There is, of course, one other thing we need to do: we need to find those
> people that BUY stuff from SPAM, take them out back and shoot them dead.
> CAUTION: before implementing said procedure, please check with your local
> law enforcement to determine if this is legal in your area. ;)
WELL
Yorkshire Dave said:
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 18:35, Benjamin A. Shelton wrote:
>
>>
>> The last article I read citing Jupiter research claimed
>> per-user spam has been doubling every 42 days. I'd almost believe
>> it...
>>
>
> This is pure conjecture, but a pleasant thought. Maybe the spammer's
>
> This is pure conjecture, but a pleasant thought. Maybe the spammer's
> return rate is halving every 42 days and they're trying to compensate.
Yes, it is pure conjecture but so are most of the statistics barfed out by
some of these organizations anyway unless their methods are legitimate (I
must
16 matches
Mail list logo
