Spam retribution

I have decided to begin putting the email addresses of outfits that spam me
on Usenet, in the hope that they will be harvested by other spammers and
they get some of their own medicine.

Others feel free to join in and fight back.

Hers are some for starters:

(E-Mail Removed)
(E-Mail Removed)
(E-Mail Removed)
(E-Mail Removed)
(E-Mail Removed)
(E-Mail Removed)
(E-Mail Removed)

Joe Soap wrote:
> I have decided to begin putting the email addresses of outfits that spam me
> on Usenet, in the hope that they will be harvested by other spammers and
> they get some of their own medicine.
>
> Others feel free to join in and fight back.
>
> Hers are some for starters:
>
> (E-Mail Removed)
> (E-Mail Removed)
> (E-Mail Removed)
> (E-Mail Removed)
> (E-Mail Removed)
> (E-Mail Removed)
> (E-Mail Removed)

And how many of those do you think are genuine spammer addresses and how
many addresses hijacked by the spammers? Its also a misuse of Usenet.
If you want to do something useful about spam join Spamcop or similar.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

In response to what Tony Raven <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> And how many of those do you think are genuine spammer addresses and how
> many addresses hijacked by the spammers? Its also a misuse of Usenet.
> If you want to do something useful about spam join Spamcop or similar.

I have selected some that are obviously not spoofed, there is no point
asking me to respond to non-genuine addies. Hundreds of others I can do
nothing about.

Misuse of Usenet? tell that to the harvesters.

I used to use SpamCop, but it has become viertually useless.

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On 30 Dec 2005 14:15:40 GMT, Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I have decided to begin putting the email addresses of outfits that spam me
>on Usenet, in the hope that they will be harvested by other spammers and
>they get some of their own medicine.

Make one mistake and the legal costs might bankrupt you.

--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Electronics for Visio http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/

In response to what Paul Herber <Usenet-(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news(E-Mail Removed) ell.net:

> On 30 Dec 2005 14:15:40 GMT, Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I have decided to begin putting the email addresses of outfits that
>>spam me on Usenet, in the hope that they will be harvested by other
>>spammers and they get some of their own medicine.
>
> Make one mistake and the legal costs might bankrupt you.

Don't believe you. Maybe you are one of the culprits?

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:52:30 +0000, Joe Soap wrote:

> In response to what Paul Herber <Usenet-(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
> news(E-Mail Removed) ell.net:
>
>> On 30 Dec 2005 14:15:40 GMT, Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>I have decided to begin putting the email addresses of outfits that spam
>>>me on Usenet, in the hope that they will be harvested by other spammers
>>>and they get some of their own medicine.
>>
>> Make one mistake and the legal costs might bankrupt you.
>
> Don't believe you. Maybe you are one of the culprits?

It's quite likely those addresses could simply bounce anything sent to
them. You could also be reported for spreading spam.

In response to what Yealand Conyers <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news(E-Mail Removed):

>> Don't believe you. Maybe you are one of the culprits?
>
> It's quite likely those addresses could simply bounce anything sent to
> them. You could also be reported for spreading spam.

a) So what?
b) You can not be serious.

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:19:12 +0000, Joe Soap wrote:

> In response to what Yealand Conyers <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
> news(E-Mail Removed):
>
>>> Don't believe you. Maybe you are one of the culprits?
>>
>> It's quite likely those addresses could simply bounce anything sent to
>> them. You could also be reported for spreading spam.
>
> a) So what?
> b) You can not be serious.

No? Then you don't know much, do you.

In response to what Yealand Conyers <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
news(E-Mail Removed):

>>> It's quite likely those addresses could simply bounce anything sent to
>>> them. You could also be reported for spreading spam.
>>
>> a) So what?
>> b) You can not be serious.
>
> No? Then you don't know much, do you.

You think you know more? Go fly a kite.

--
Joe Soap.
JUNK is stuff that you keep for 20 years,
then throw away a week before you need it.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 14:37:54 UTC, Joe Soap <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In response to what Tony Raven <(E-Mail Removed)> posted in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > And how many of those do you think are genuine spammer addresses and how
> > many addresses hijacked by the spammers? Its also a misuse of Usenet.
> > If you want to do something useful about spam join Spamcop or similar.
>
> I have selected some that are obviously not spoofed, there is no point
> asking me to respond to non-genuine addies. Hundreds of others I can do
> nothing about.

'obviously not spoofed' - by what criteria?

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]