> "DF" == Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DF> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:12:26AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
>> While I agree with what they're doing, I disagree with how they're doing
>> it. For all intents and purposes, the "anti-spammers" in question are
>> still costing someone
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 10:12:26AM -0500, Mike Burger wrote:
> Yup...I think I saw it mentioned here, first.
>
> On one hand, it's great that he's finally getting what's coming to him,
> and at least the senders are paying postage on the items being sent.
>
> On the other hand, it's a shame that
Yup...I think I saw it mentioned here, first.
On one hand, it's great that he's finally getting what's coming to him,
and at least the senders are paying postage on the items being sent.
On the other hand, it's a shame that the vendors and retailers in question
have to pay, themselves, for havi
> Anyone seen this one:
> http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend6_20021206.htm
Yeah, /. had an article a couple days ago on this. Don't think it'll stop
him though
Josh
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek hea
Anyone seen this one: http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend6_20021206.htm
--
Kent Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manager - Systems & Networking
Hunter Engineering Company
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
htt
