26 Jul
2004
26 Jul
'04
10:15 a.m.
On Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:00:01 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
I would contend abuse of spamarrest's services, as you originally described them, is closer to a Joe Job than outright spam by spamarrest.
IBTD. And if you read some of the 166 messages shown by...
http://www.google.com/groups?q=spamarrest.com+group%3A*.net-abuse.*+-group%3A*.sightings
...you'll find that I'm not exactly alone with this opinion.
I don't dispute that they have abusive and brain-dead policies and designs, but the key question is do they have any legitimate uses? If so we probably can't list them.
Jeff C.