 
|
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:03:58 -0800 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
| Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Organization: |
Computing Connection |
| Comments: |
|
On 17 Mar 97, W Schipper wrote:
> But if it was, then you'd already know, wouldn't you? It might have
> been equally informative to post only the name of the offending spammer,
> instead of forcing someone to scroll through all 27 pages until the end
> of the message.
The person's name was also at the top. But I don't think that was the original
spammer, as why would anyone want to get several hundred automated answers? I
suspect that the recipient probably was either created or innocent. Perhaps the
spam was directed at an individual (the subscriber) or AOL itself. I sure get
tired of dealing with the AOL bounces, most of them "mailbox full"
Liz
~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~
Liz & the Terv Herd
Somewhere on the beautiful Oregon coast
Spiritbrook
Working Labradors, Siberians, Tervuren
John 4:14
~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~@~~
[log in to unmask]
http://www.harborside.com/home/l/lizm
|
|
|
