On Sat, 11 Nov 1995, Mike Holloway wrote:
> > I would suggest, by the way, that in the future, if people want
> >to publicize the doings of spammers, they not reproduce much of the message.
> >It would be especially good not to include the product's specific features
> >nor where/how one can obtain it. Why give the spammer's product any more
> >free publicity?
>
> First
> off, the information "where/how one can obtain it" is usually necessary for
> protesting the spam. When posting about a spam, presumably to SPAM-L,
> please do edit out as much of the spam as you conveniently can, but please
> include the contact information, even PO box info.
Since Mike quotes me and seems to take issue with me, I'd like to
point out that I think we're in agreement. The editing he suggests for
SPAM-L postings is exactly what I had in mind as appropriate for reporting
of spams here as well. By all means, do indicate who is spamming, what
his/her email address is, and SOME info about the content of the message.
What I was objecting to was a posting that enumerated the features of the
product, what it cost, and the snail mail address one should send one's
money to to obtain it. That, it seemed to me, was needlessly giving the
spammer additional publicity.
The danger with spam discussions is that they can result in as
much mail clutter as the spam itself. I do hope I'm not contributing to
such an effect.
Joan Korenman
*****************************************************************************
* Joan Korenman Internet: [log in to unmask] *
* U. of Md. Baltimore County or *
* Baltimore, MD 21228-5398 [log in to unmask] *
* *
* The only person to have everything done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe *
*****************************************************************************
|
