management wants me to set up an auto-reply to mails marked as spam
by SA. I
told them that this is a very bad idea, since
a.) reply addresses are fakes and not working most of the time anyway
b.) if they DO work, we will just notify the spammers that the
address they
bought/harvested is working
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: [SAtalk] Slightly OT: Arguments needed for not replying to spam
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralf Guenthner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk]
Ralf Guenthner said:
> management wants me to set up an auto-reply to mails marked as spam by SA. I
> told them that this is a very bad idea, since
>
> a.) reply addresses are fakes and not working most of the time anyway
> b.) if they DO work, we will just notify the spammers that the address t
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralf Guenthner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 8:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [SAtalk] Slightly OT: Arguments needed for not
> replying to spam
>
>
> Fellow spam-fighters,
>
> management wants me to set up an auto-repl
--On Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:58 PM +0200 Ralf Guenthner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apologies to list members! I am very sorry for confusing anyone's
message threading. Since I am stuck with an employer that uses mostly MS
stuff, I didn't notice myself.
I wasn't aware that anything remains, w
Apologies to list members! I am very sorry for confusing anyone's
message threading. Since I am stuck with an employer that uses mostly MS
stuff, I didn't notice myself.
I wasn't aware that anything remains, when one takes an existing posting,
removes the body and subject and changes them to somet
Please don't thread steal. You replied to an existing thread of
conversation and changed the subject line. That is impolite. Now
your message right in the middle of Martin Bene's thread about
"Learning from forwarded mail". How are they related? Many people
won't even read your message because
