Home > Archive > Unix Programming > October 2004 > Re: SPAM
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Chuck Dillon 2004-10-21, 8:56 pm |
| Jim Brock wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:48:10 GMT, Rich Teer
> <OOOO.OOOO@OOOO-OOOOO.OOO> wrote:
>
> I've converted all contact and product information in this
> spam to Os (numbers and letters).
>
>
> <snip>
>
> You are a spammer.
By what definition? I can think of two definitions for spam. 1)
multiple posting of off-topic information to an unnecessarily large set
of unrelated forums. 2) Unsoliticed email.
He's done neither. He provided a valid, and potentially useful,
response to a request (i.e. solicited) for information.
> <snip>
>
> Need I point out to the OP and others that it would be a mistake
> to trust the information in a book written by someone that
> obviously lacks morals? ...
You can't be serious, ROTFLMAO...
You've got your own definition of morality as well as spam it appears.
-- ced
--
Chuck Dillon
Senior Software Engineer
NimbleGen Systems Inc.
| |
| Webmaster 2004-10-21, 8:56 pm |
| In article <cl9a3v$1ri$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>
Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Brock wrote:
>
> By what definition? I can think of two definitions for spam. 1)
> multiple posting of off-topic information to an unnecessarily large set
> of unrelated forums. 2) Unsoliticed email.
>
> He's done neither. He provided a valid, and potentially useful,
> response to a request (i.e. solicited) for information.
>
>
> You can't be serious, ROTFLMAO...
>
> You've got your own definition of morality as well as spam it appears.
>
Yawn.
|
|
|
|
|