=- Derek Martin wrote on Wed 16.May'07 at 21:21:34 -0400 -= > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:09:20PM +0200, René Clerc wrote: > > > * Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [15-05-2007 17:25]: > > > > > On 2007-05-15 10:29:19 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > > > > > > > This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to > > > > it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the > > > > inconvenience. Thank the spammers. > > > > > > Am I the only one who finds this offensive? > > > > Why is that? > > Indeed, why? > > A few facts:
Uh, why not wait for the OP's answer, as it seems you have no reason yet to justify, as we all know the need for spam defense? Since the matter is totally unrelated to mutt, please continue on [EMAIL PROTECTED], thank you. MFT + Reply-To set. (mutt-ot was created specifically for such cases as this one: when threads go off-topic, but people still like to continue) BTW, I, too, am curious to learn the reasons behind Thomas' statement. > 4. Since adopting my new method of spam management (now some 5+ > years old, if I'm not mistaken), I receive at most a total of > about *3 spams per day* to all my personal e-mail addresses > combined, *completely unfiltered* for spam. How can this happen, it should be totally free of spam then? > What would it take? A spammers-free world, no free (of cost) eMail. Fix the origin, then you don't have to fight the symptoms. -- © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal! EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude. You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.
