On Wednesday 16 October 2002 12:10, Martyn Ranyard wrote: >At 11:07 AM 10/16/02 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >>I take it you didn't visit the web page to see just what >> tollyboy's jolly generator was then? I didn't go past the >> opening page, but its front and center display was for a >> combination safety belt and cod-piece from 500 years back, >> called a 'security' belt. Complete with gold chains & assorted >> S&M trimmings. >> >>In other words that autoresponder message is nothing more than >> pure spam, and has absolutely nothing to do with sane. Pull >> down filters, add a from=autoresponder, close, hit ctrl+j and >> voila! u...@ftc.gov now will get all further copies starting with >> the 3 I've got so far today. > >Now hold on just a cotton-picking. How do you make the bold > statement that rules out that this person, who, no matter his > occupation and lack of forethought with his autoresponder, might > have a scanner and OS that sane runs on. > >Your indignant message is based more on what he does as work and > not what he is doing regards autoresponders. Do you know the > occupation of all the sane-devel list subscribers? I would say > remove him temporarily and notify him that if he wants to > resubscribe to not put any autoresponders on. Also, my vote is > to put a few little filters on the mailing list to reject > autoresponders.
The indignancy content of my message was purely based on the fact that the links contained in that message led directly to the image I quoted about. That was what popped up on screen simply by clicking on the supplied link. I frankly haven't got 50 cents to call somebody who *might* care about your feelings in this case. The plain fact is that he is spamming this list with a message that is most certainly not appropriate for this list. If he didn't want me to treat him as a common spammer, the message thats now been repeated about 25 times would be both on topic, and certainly on this list, carry non-pruient content. It is neither. What if your 11 year old daughter had clicked on that link? I'd suspect a different attitude would have prevailed in that case. >I certainly cannot advocate removing someone from the list > (blocking as someone else has suggested) based on their > occupation. If this person does start submitting spam (other > than his current non-thinking responder) then yes, by all means, > but not guilty until proven innocent. I repeat at risk of boreing everybody, the evidence is in this case overwhelming to anyone who took the few seconds to view it. >>I recommend US citizens follow suite. > >Thankfully I am not a US citizen, I am a UK subject, and > therefore, if I don't bow to the queen, I can have my head > chopped off. And I think your queen is a very cool lady. She has managed to keep her regality intact through quite a tempestous decade in merry old England. I have VERY serious doubts that she would have your head chopped off. A private message of displeasure maybe... -- Cheers, Gene AMD K6-III@500mhz 320M Athlon1600XP@1400mhz 512M 99.18% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
