cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-08-22 - Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)

Header Data

From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
To: asgaard@Cor.sos.sll.se (Asgaard)
Message Hash: 7716a838d36791ae309c45500bfd0d7fb07781af2a7b9ae39afbfd18adf55ec3
Message ID: <199608221447.OAA00185@fountainhead.net>
Reply To: <Pine.HPP.3.91.960821144412.10644C-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-22 21:52:32 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 05:52:32 +0800

Raw message

From: Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 05:52:32 +0800
To: asgaard@Cor.sos.sll.se (Asgaard)
Subject: Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.91.960821144412.10644C-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>
Message-ID: <199608221447.OAA00185@fountainhead.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> 
> On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> > There are technological fixes which I would favor over attempts to ban
> > unwanted messages.
> 
> In the meantime, before these technological fixes are easily implemented,
> what is the proper way to handle unwanted commercial mail?
> 
> 1) delete immediately
> 
> 2) reply with 'Fuck off, morons!'
> 
> 3) as in 2) plus an attachment of some 1Mb file
> 
> 4) as in 3) plus a CC to the postmaster of the sending site
> 
> What if the spam says: 'Do only reply to this if you want
> further contact with us' etc?
> 
> Does anybody have good advice, including risks for retaliation
> from the vendors/postmasters for such 're-spam'?

Informal law! The first content line could be "This is un-solicited mail". 
Then the MTA will remove it. Sender who doesnot put this line in his spam 
should be mailbombed. Though this kind of arrangement doesn't mean that spam
is nice thing if it has the line in it. 

- Vipul

Thread