On 08/29/03 09:39 AM, Frank Pineau sat at the `puter and typed: > > > On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Dragoncrest wrote: > > > > > You'd figure by now that they'd get > > the message that neither they nor their garbage is wanted. But obviously not. > > As long as people continue to respond to their spam by sending them money, > then what message are they expected to get? That spamming makes money? > I'd say they got that message. > > > > On a good note though, this simply means that the spammers are > > getting desperate and we're winning the fight, slowly but surely. :D > > > > > > The sharp increase in the signal-to-noise ratio in my inbox in the last > six months would seem to discredit that theory. Sure, SA is tagging it, > but tagged spam is still spam and it still takes resources to deal with it > (CPU, bandwidth, etc.)
HERE HERE!!! Which is why the practice of sending spam can be seen as nothing more than plain ordinary theft. Sure it's theft of a virtual resource, but theft nonetheless. L -- Louis LeBlanc [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :) http://www.keyslapper.org ԿԬ The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. Seek simplicity and distrust it. -- Whitehead. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
