On Fri, 31 May 2002, Wolfgang Ratzka wrote: > Am Freitag, 31. Mai 2002 22:49 schrieb Fred K Ollinger: > > > > > I agree. This is unethical. So is sending spam. I suggest that one would > > send two copies of spam back for each copy recieved. This is not as > > unethical b/c one was spammed and one is only returning the favor. If the > > spammer is manually sending out emails and gets a few replies back then > > this won't cause any trouble. But if one sends out unsolicited mail to a > > few million people and they get a few million back then they get what they > > dished out, tit for tat. If you are the only one sending mail back then > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > > The problem is, that you can never be sure whether your "retribution" will > actually hit the right person. So you might fry some poor sys admin > who has enough trouble with his clueless users anyway ;-). > > So apparently <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has subscribed to the mailing > list and has set up some smart-ass filter tool that blocks traffic from > the mailing list produces these silly automatic responses... > > In this case the best solution would be for some list admin to remove > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > from the mailing list.
We don't have any subscriptions from that domain even, so unless someone shows headers with more information, there's very little that we can do. -- "And if the messenger would shoot first?" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
