> > This ``spam'' was sent to the mailing list on Sun, 21 Nov 199
> > 16:20:37. An apology explaining that the message was sent here
> > by mistake followed 1:06 minutes later.
>
> Yes. Apology is not enough.
The point was that the vast majority of spam is not followed immediately
by an apology from the spammer. So that message might not have been
spam.
> > The ``spam'' was sent using Mozilla, not the world's most
> > popular bulk mail software.
>
> Yes. If you pay attention to headers of spam, you probably know
> that some spam messages are sent by using standard UNIX or
> Windows mailers and newsreaders.
True. 15% of 1847 email spam sightings on
news.admin.net-abuse.sightings were for spam that included an
X-Mailer: header. (This figure can't account for spamware that tries
to make its output look like a legitimate message, though.)
So there's a good chance that message was not spam.
> > It was sent by a subscriber; in fact, a quick archive search
> > shows that this subscriber has posted ~11 message to the mailing
> > list in the last year. (I.e. this is not a spammer who subscribed
> > in order to bypass the posting restrictions.)
>
> Yes. Again, if you pay attention to headers of spam, you
> probably know that some spam has perfectly valid sender
> addresses.
I also pay attention to the BODY of spam. Spammers don't spam to piss
YOU off, they spam for a purpose; usually to make money. Their schemes
are arguably stupid (e.g. MLM, or ``buy my product'' kind of crap), but
that's why they spam -- the larger the target audience, the larger the
chances of the spammer seeing measurable profit.
That ``spam'' advertised a castle for sale for $1,100,000. How many
people in the world are interested in a castle in France for that price?
How many of them subscribe to linux-il?
Hmm, perhaps that message wasn't spam.
It's generally not very courteous or helpful to cc NATO like you did on
a first spam complaint, even if it's legitimate; given the question
marks on this one, do you really think it was appropriate?
> > This sort of hysterical bullshit does not help the fight against
> > spam.
>
> My opinion differs here. One of the reasons is that he probably
> sent this message to other people, who did not want to receive
> it.
When you receive spam, you have good reasons to believe it was sent
to others. After all, you don't know the sender and the spam's
nature is usually obvious. But in this case, the sender was not
anonymous and in fact indicated that the message was sent in error.
So, what evidence do you have to support your conclusion that he also
sent this message to ``other people, who did not to receive it''?
Aside from that, I'm curious as to what other reasons exist for
your apparent belief that complaining loudly about something that is
probably not spam helps the fight against spam.
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
