Searching \ for 'Free Pictures Of Hot Girls !!!' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Free Pictures Of Hot Girls !!!'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Free Pictures Of Hot Girls !!!'
1997\08\06@004515 by nssssps

picon face
This is a one time offer.   You will never receive this or any message from us
again.

Incredibly Hot Pictures of  Girls can be seen by clicking here -> <A
HREF="http://www.exxxscape.com">CLICK HERE !</A>













































This is a one time offer.   You will never receive this or any message from us
again.

1997\08\06@011131 by Garrick A Kremesec

flavicon
face
Do any children read this mailing list?  Dateline is right!  It is easy to
find!

--
Garrick Kremesec
Beckman Institute - RA
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~gkremese
spam_OUTgkremeseTakeThisOuTspamuiuc.edu

1997\08\06@013724 by tjaart

flavicon
face
Garrick A Kremesec wrote:
>
> Do any children read this mailing list?  Dateline is right!  It is easy to
> find!
>

We just act like children! :)

--
Friendly Regards

Tjaart van der Walt
.....tjaartKILLspamspam@spam@wasp.co.za
________________________________________________________
|        WASP International   http://wasp.co.za          |
|   R&D Engineer : GSM peripheral services development   |
|Vehicle tracking | Telemetry systems | GSM data transfer|
|Voice : +27-(0)11-622-8686  |  Fax : +27-(0)11-622-8973 |
|             WGS-84 : 26010.52'S 28006.19'E             |
|________________________________________________________|

1997\08\06@020505 by Mike Smith

flavicon
face
-----Original Message-----
From: 15141465spamKILLspamjuno.com <.....15141465KILLspamspam.....juno.com>
To: EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU <PICLISTspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, 6 August 1997 14:16
Subject: Free Pictures Of Hot Girls !!!



>This is a one time offer.   You will never receive this or any message from
us
> again.

These 2 statements are the SPAM equivalent of 'your cheque is in the mail'
It *isn't* one time, we will see this message again, and responding to the
email address itself will only give them another address to bomb.

What's the [SPAMTRACE] thing about, BTW?

MikeS
<@spam@mikesmith_ozKILLspamspamrelaymail.net>

1997\08\06@022617 by John Payson

flavicon
face
> What's the [SPAMTRACE] thing about, BTW?

My conjecture is that the [SPAMTRACE] was sent from an address which has
never been used for any purpose other than sending the [SPAMTRACE]
message.  I think he wants to see whether any spams get delivered to that
address; if so, that would constitute pretty strong evidence that:

[1] Someone is grabbing addresses of PicList posters and spamming them.

[2] Whoever spammed that address or fed it to a spamlist disregarded a
clearly-visible notice that he did not wish for that address to get
spammed.

If [1] is true, it would be nice to know.  If [2] is true, that could be
valid cause for legal action; while the [SPAMTRACE] post might be viewed
as entrapment, since its very existence might entice a spammer to send
junkmail to that address, any attempted defense by the junkmailer on those
grounds would fall flat on a couple points:

(a) The actions of the [SPAMTRACE] poster were legal.

(b) The [SPAMTRACE] poster was explicitly asking that the spammer not send
junkmail.

Personally, I doubt if any legal cause of action against spammers would
be successful; nonetheless, I would hope it wold be.  In particular, if
the courts hold that spambaiting is a legal way of catching spammers and
upholds the civil penalties for electronic junk-mail ($500/piece if I
remember right), one could start raking in money off the internet by
setting up "spambait" mailboxes.

I suspect that the people sending out spams would probably argue that
since all they got was a list, they had no way of knowing whether anyone
on that list had requested not to receive spams.  On the other hand, the
court would probably find that the spammer acted with "reckless disregard"
for whether his recipients consented to receive his posts; the only way
IMHO the courts could find otherwise would be if the person selling the
list promised that all the addresses were legit (in which case the person
selling the list would be liable).

Personally, [nearly] anything to get rid of spam is good.  The sooner the
better.  If a method can incorporate a PIC or two, so much the better.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1997 , 1998 only
- Today
- New search...