Re: sortnoxington.com - stagedgarage.com - Anything else I can do to stop the spam?

When you don't contextualize your reply remarks, they don't have the
meaning that they would have if properly contextualized, or put into
order.  I don't like to try to have a conversation with someone who
doesn't trim and contextualize.

Chris wrote:

> My reference in relation to 'attack' was specifically that I am
> getting a very large amount of spam emails with a specific FROM
> domain name.

That remark should have been put into the context of my questioning the
word 'attack' here:

Mike Easter wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>
>> I am constantly under attack from Spam from a few regular companies.
>
> Attack?

My 'Attack?' meant that a few score spams a day isn't an /attack/.  It
is a few scores of spams.  An attack is something else.


> Example from 'Stagedgarage.com'
>
> http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1752930315

Again, you failed to contextualize.  If you had contextualized you would
be able to see what you are saying in the context where you were
supposed to be saying it.  Notice what shows up:

Mike Easter wrote:
> If you want to talk about a spam, you should post a tracking url for
> it.

> Here is your TRACKING URL - it may be saved for future reference:
>
http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z947257742zeb31a0c0c0e741292976ccd30c0f752cz
>
> and copy that tracking URL and paste it in here.

> http://www.spamcop.net/mcgi?action=gettrack&reportid=1751181161

Notice that you did *not* post a tracking URL.  Instead you posted a
reportid link.  That is not helpful to anyone but you.  A report id can
only be used by the reporter of the reportid to access the tracking URL.
If you go to the reportid link, you can use it to access the spam and
get the proper tracking url.  I cannot do that because I am not logged
in as you.

Your link ends with 'reportid=1751181161'

My example ends with 'id=z947257742zeb31a0c0c0e741292976ccd30c0f752cz'

They are distinctly different.

> Seems 'HARBLES.COM' has taken its
> place for exactly the same purpose.

I could do the same thing with harbles I did with the others, but I'm
going to wait for a legitimate tracker.

> I am NOT running the JW software - In a previous message I did state
> that I was running MailWasher, which runs quite well.

That remark lacks context.  It should have appeared near here:

Mike Easter wrote:
> I also seem to recall that you have some kind of jwspamspy software.

On about May 12 you said:

Chris wrote:

> I noticed that if I was using the JWSpamSpy blacklist, then these
> spams would have been blocked as according to this page:




-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin