Re: [CH] Re: I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-(

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Byron: "[CH] OF"
• Previous message: KnoxBill: "Re: [CH] I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-("
• In reply to: Jim Graham: "Re: [CH] Re: I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-("
• Next in thread: Paul Wilson: "Re: [CH] Re: I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-("
• Next in thread: Doug Irvine: "Re: [CH] Jim C"

Jim Graham wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 04:28:36PM -0400, =Mark wrote:
>   
>> I only got the two messages from the list, none got through to my inbox...
>>     
>
> Perhaps I should re-phrase that question....  Whether it made it through
> your spam filters or not, did anyone else get any direct copies?  My
> procmail rules caught it, too (HTML == spam), but that wasn't the point.
> I'm interested in how many e-mail addresses the spammer grabbed from the
> list, and for that, it doesn't matter whether it got THROUGH your spam
> filters...it only matters whether or not it was sent to your address.
>   
got two direct to knoxbill...

-- 

knoxbill



"How to make a million dollars:  First, get a million dollars."
                 -- Steve Martin

• Next message: Byron: "[CH] OF"
• Previous message: KnoxBill: "Re: [CH] I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-("
• In reply to: Jim Graham: "Re: [CH] Re: I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-("
• Next in thread: Paul Wilson: "Re: [CH] Re: I suppose it had to happen...spam on the list :-("
• Next in thread: Doug Irvine: "Re: [CH] Jim C"