Re: [SPAM-TAG] [SURBL-Discuss] Spammer threatening to suesingle4y ou.net

Jeff Chan wrote:

So what you're saying is that there are no recent NANAS. IOW they're not spamming.

At least not after 2002. Some of the older sightings and discussions appeared to be real for 0mm and businesslink.

But that still does not answer the question, do they get mentioned in a lot of hams?

Who knows, certainly not me, I don't recall _any_ mail mentioning these sites. OTOH my mail folders are only 40 MB, most of it 2003/2004.

The question is not about spams, it's about hams.

My question was about your time and the size of your white list. All I find for "0mm.com" smells rotten, it's a very old spammer, simply ignore it. Bye, Frank