On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 07:29, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:27:08PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > so i'll sue the next spammer sending from the US... except it won't
> > work, right, because the US legal system is more of a joke than what
> > it pretends to be...
>
> Between
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 12:27:08PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> so i'll sue the next spammer sending from the US... except it won't
> work, right, because the US legal system is more of a joke than what
> it pretends to be...
Between that, our screwy politics, and the fact it turns out that
Ore
also sprach Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.07.0816 +0100]:
> The Telecommunications Act of 1988 prohibits it in the United States,
> as computers are capable of transcribing to paper.
so i'll sue the next spammer sending from the US... except it won't
work, right, because the US legal s
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 23:02:53 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hugh Saunders) wrote:
I tried this with one of my old email accounts for about a month.
Around one forth of the links did not work, of the ones that did the
mail kept comming.
In addition I got new mail from the companies, so I had to get a n
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:16:26PM -0600, Nicolaus Kedegren wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, Sweden has a law that prohibits "unsolicited
> commercial email" a.k.a. spam. I am not fully aware of how the law is
> written, but if any swedes out there can give some more inf, I am sure
> it would be appr
Nicolaus Kedegren said:
> If I am not mistaken, Sweden has a law that prohibits "unsolicited
> commercial email" a.k.a. spam. I am not fully aware of how the law is
> written, but if any swedes out there can give some more inf, I am sure it
> would be appreciated by all of us.
washington does to
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:55:50PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Hugh Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.06.0002 +0100]:
> > Is it adviseable to attempt to use these measures to be removed from
> > lists? or just keep on writing filitering rules?
>
> no. yes. in that order.
>
> w
also sprach Hugh Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.12.06.0002 +0100]:
> Is it adviseable to attempt to use these measures to be removed from
> lists? or just keep on writing filitering rules?
no. yes. in that order.
we should start filing suits against spammers. anyone know which
countries in th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> at the bottom of many spam-type emails there is a get out clause or
> something to remove my name from the database. Surely clicking on this
> link/sending an email to the adress specified simply verifies that your
> address is valid?
>
> Is it adviseable to attempt to
Hugh Saunders said:
> hello,
>
> at the bottom of many spam-type emails there is a get out clause or
> something to remove my name from the database. Surely clicking on this
> link/sending an email to the adress specified simply verifies that your
> address is valid?
>
> Is it adviseable to attempt
hello,
at the bottom of many spam-type emails there is a get out clause or
something to remove my name from the database. Surely clicking on this
link/sending an email to the adress specified simply verifies that your
address is valid?
Is it adviseable to attempt to use these measures to be remov
11 matches
Mail list logo
