Re: Response to spam

From: Michael Austin <>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:56:31 GMT
Message-ID: <PvCgj.61326$>

Arch wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:07:55 -0600, John Mishefske
> <> wrote:

>> Martijn Tonies wrote:
>>>> I know that quite often members of the group don't see the outcome of
>>>> what some of us do to fight spam. Here's one positive outcome.
>> And kudos to Daniel for showing us a positive outcome and for his 
>> diligence. And to James for understanding.

> I have to agree, wholeheartedly. It is very easy to grow frustrated,
> seeing the seemingly endless stream of spam spewed upon the forums.
> That makes it easy to give up and stop sending in the abuse reports.
> Daniel has showed us that it might not be totally futile.
>>> Although James replies in a positive way and I do appreciate anyone who
>>> fights spam (in a decent way ;-), this is hardly "real" spam. James posted
>>> to this group without knowing the charter, he got directed to it and replies
>>> to that ( I've done the same in the past ). Big deal. This hardly is spam.
>> But Daniel couldn't determine if James knew the charter from that one post.
>>> Spam? Fight the damn "MI5" spammer who posted his tens of messages
>>> coming from different e-mail addresses all over the public newsgroups!

> I believe that guy is some kind of lunatic or nut job. There is no
> point in trying to reason with him. The closest to an effective
> solution is the one I've chosen - a newsreader with a regex
> configurable kill filter.
>> Agreed. The MI5 spammer gathers no sympathy to whatever cause he/she 
>> spews. Folks just ignore, or worse come to oppose, his cause because of 
>> the delivery method.
>> 2 cents....

> Just 2 cents more from Arch

Got 4 cents do I hear 10? gimme 10 - how about 10?

yeah, never was much of an auctioneer... Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 21:56:31 CST

Original text of this message