Re: Spamcop filters (was Fake Bounce)

2004-06-03 Thread Paul Cartwright
On Thursday, June 3, 2004, 11:09 AM, you wrote: MLW> I downloaded the filters, got a free account at Spamcop and tried the MLW> send filter. The email I was trying to send to spamcop was deleted. MLW> I have tried a few other things, but just cannot get the spamcop MLW> filters to do anyt

Spamcop filters (was Fake Bounce)

2004-06-03 Thread Michael L. Wilson
Hello Paul, On Sun, 30 May 2004, at 08:17:07 [GMT-0400] (which was 05:17:07 In San Jose, CA, USA) you wrote: PC> Marck has 2 filters, I downloaded the filters, got a free account at Spamcop and tried the send filter. The email I was trying to send to spamcop was deleted. I have tried a fe

Re: Fake bounce

2004-05-30 Thread Paul Cartwright
On Sunday, May 30, 2004, 11:16 AM, you wrote: j> If it "takes the reply" then you have to wait for it, no? Nevertheless, my j> primary point is that using Spamcop is more time consuming that simply deleting j> email off the server based on viewing the header (ala Mailwasher) and that (IMO) j> an

Re: Fake bounce

2004-05-30 Thread Greg Strong
Hello rich, Sunday, May 30, 2004, 1:16:45 AM, rich gregory wrote: rg> Hummm. Maybe we should all just pay .05 cents for each email we rg> send... I don't like that ideal either. -- Best Regards, Greg Strong Using The Bat! v2.11 Beta/9 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 "There

Re[2]: Fake bounce

2004-05-30 Thread jwayne
On Sunday, May 30, 2004, 8:17:07 AM, Paul Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: PC> On Saturday, May 29, 2004, 11:22 PM, you wrote: j>> ith a TB macro. It's much more time consuming that just deleting the offending j>> messages as sending an email to Spamcop is only half the process. You must als

Re: Fake bounce

2004-05-30 Thread Paul Cartwright
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, 11:22 PM, you wrote: j> ith a TB macro. It's much more time consuming that just deleting the offending j> messages as sending an email to Spamcop is only half the process. You must also j> wait for an email link for each spam email that you sent to Spamcop, then go to j

Re: Fake bounce

2004-05-29 Thread jwayne
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, 2:34:23 PM, rich gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: rg> Hello Batters! rg> I know there exists a template/macro that will do the following but I never did get it up and running. rg> From an ad: rg> Have you ever wished that you could return spam to its sender and fool

Re: Fake bounce

2004-05-29 Thread Paul Cartwright
On Saturday, May 29, 2004, 2:34 PM, you wrote: rg> I know there exists a template/macro that will do the following rg> but I never did get it up and running. rg> From an ad: rg> Have you ever wished that you could return spam to its sender and fool rg> them into thinking that your e-mail addres

Re: Fake bounce

2004-05-29 Thread MAU
Hello rich, > I know that some high percentage of SPAMs come from invalid addresses > so perhaps the entire project/cost is not worth the effort? No, it is not worth the effort. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v2.10.03 _