On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Adam Morrison wrote:
> 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.
so far the one spam messged begot a thread of 15-20 messages in reply,
all offtopic in every respect,
> > 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 apolo
Quoth guy keren on Sun, Nov 28, 1999:
> checking the facts before making such assumptions could be a good policy.
> don't you agree?
You've got a point. Maybe I was overheated that day.
> even if statistically most spammers don't listen to
> explanations until they see their accounts terminated
Quoth Adam Morrison on Fri, Nov 26, 1999:
> 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 ``spam'' was sent using Mozilla, not the world'
> The MIME-attached message was posted to the Linux-IL mailing
> list, which I happen to be the owner of. I would like to point
> out that Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (also known as SPAM) is
> not appreciated on the mailing list, whether it's about making
> money fast or 15th century historic c
Dear Galileo Postmaster,
The MIME-attached message was posted to the Linux-IL mailing
list, which I happen to be the owner of. I would like to point
out that Unsolicited Commercial E-mail (also known as SPAM) is
not appreciated on the mailing list, whether it's about making
money fast or 15th ce
