Just a public service announcement…
Hal
matt neuburg [email protected] wrote:
Hal F. [email protected] wrote:
Just a public service announcement…
Ooops, I disobeyed.
Off to my killfile you go.
lg, Bernd
Bernd Haug wrote:
matt neuburg [email protected] wrote:
Hal F. [email protected] wrote:
Just a public service announcement…
Ooops, I disobeyed.Off to my killfile you go.
lg, Bernd
Just a reminder …
When you petulantly put a person in your killfile,
don’t waste bandwidth telling him and us what
you have done.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- Bernd Haug, 11/18/2006 05:05 PM:
matt neuburg [email protected] wrote:
Hal F. [email protected] wrote:
Just a public service announcement…
Ooops, I disobeyed.Off to my killfile you go.
That was a good one. Actually I didn’t mean to reply to the message
but to point out that it does not matter if a message is SPAM or not
as long as it qualifies as JUNK. It need not even be unsolicited. If
a mailing list happens to fail unsubscription (I had that problem
once) the best you can do is having all messages from that list
qualified as JUNK.
Jupp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFX45prhv7B2zGV08RAkmAAJ9yNQsuwHCf1UvW2FijEYlrhHFjqwCeIpQd
Dn0BbXUZg0fFTJOjRrY/IPk=
=xYRO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
matt neuburg wrote:
Hal F. [email protected] wrote:
Just a public service announcement…
Ooops, I disobeyed.
m.
I believe Hal’s (well taken) point is that replying to spam, as Josef
Schugt just did in c.l.ruby and Brandon McCombs did (to the same post)
in c.l.java, makes the spam harder for filters to detect. Ideally, Hal
could reply to Josef with a “please don’t feed the trolls” post, but the
reply would only make the original spam seem even more acceptable to the
filters.