You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Matt Kettler <mk...@comcast.net> on 2005/12/22 15:34:08 UTC

Re: [OT] US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

At 07:13 PM 12/21/2005, jdow wrote:
>From: "Martin Hepworth" <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
>>Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)
>
>It's the BBC, for crying out loud. They've wiped their own reputation
>with so many dirty cloths they've used it all up. I never expect any
>serious veracity from them. I read them mostly for the entertainment
>value of their egregious mistakes and biases.

OT humor of relevance here:

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051209

Re: [OT] US winning war on spam ?!?!?!

Posted by jdow <jd...@earthlink.net>.

From: "Matt Kettler" <mk...@comcast.net>

> At 07:13 PM 12/21/2005, jdow wrote:
>>From: "Martin Hepworth" <ma...@solid-state-logic.com>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4547474.stm
>>>Not according to my stats....but the users don't get the spam anymore ;-)
>>
>>It's the BBC, for crying out loud. They've wiped their own reputation
>>with so many dirty cloths they've used it all up. I never expect any
>>serious veracity from them. I read them mostly for the entertainment
>>value of their egregious mistakes and biases.

Worse yet it's the US FTC that made this pronouncement. "We're the
government. We're here to help you!" NOT!

> OT humor of relevance here:
> 
> http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20051209

I follow that religiously. (And I tend to trust Wikipedia where politics
is not a major concern. Of course, in that sort of case I do not trust any
one source at all.)

{^_-}