On Thursday, December 23, 2004, 6:43:42 PM, William Stearns wrote:
Good evening, Jeff, all,
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Jeff Chan wrote:
On Thursday, December 23, 2004, 3:51:58 PM, Brett Cove wrote:
William Stearns wrote:
We discussed proflowers earlier this year. To quote Jeff:It also seems they're at least trying to cut back on spamming if we accept the decrease in recent NANAS sightings.
I just received 4 more spams from them, one attached. Perhaps theyjust get quiet between holidays? I'd like to place one vote for blacklisting them. Opinions?
We've seen piles of spam promoting proflowers.com in the past two days, all containing asandox.com uris and arriving via an asandox.com relay. IMO asando.com (http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL20781) is the uri that should be blocked, not proflowers.com.
Thank you. That is exactly the right way to reason things. If asando_ is the actual spamming affiliate or whatever, then they should be the ones to block.
It raises an interesting philosophical question; is the originalcompany that paid for the compaign and benefits from the sales responsible? I don't claim to have an all-seeing answer, and would like to hear other people's opinions. Cheers, - Bill
Yes, they're responsible. Does that mean none of their customers should be able to get their mail?
That's a much harder and more relevant philosophical question.
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."