[SC-Help] Re: "No links found" tracker
nobody at devnull.spamcop.net
Sat Jul 31 18:15:12 EDT 2004
Mike Easter wrote in message
> eddie wrote:
> > Here's another one.
> Two sets of content type again. You have to get rid of the set that sez
> multipart alternative and boundary. The actual body is text/html and
> the only 'boundary' is the epilogue at the end.
> I think SC should offer a service, only for pay, not for free, that
> offers some modified reporting 'method' which is more liberal in its
> interpretation of 'material changes' - so that people who are pay can
> feed 'slightly' modified or 'corrected' spamitems for which they
> 'declare' the modification ['forged and misleading content type
> headerline removed' in this example] -- they could even check 'material
> change' if necessary.
You make sense, and I think it is a worthy proposal. As it stands,
you could "cheat", risk being "exposed" and get "spanked".
In a way, you would still be "paying" for breaking the rules.
For myself, cheating is not something I have ever been able
to bring myself to do. In this case, I'm still trying to get a sense
of the playing field. I'm devoid of interest in a "Gold Pass"
to do what I believe you probably should be permitted to
do with your level of expertise.
But for one small issue, I believe I strongly agree with your
proposal: I don't believe you should be asked to pay for
the priveleges you ask, I believe you have worked hard for
them and that they should be granted on the basis of
demonstrated proficiency to do the "right thing", kind
of like a merit badge or diploma to be conferred, with
"all the rights and priveleges pertaining thereto", something
that ethically ought not come with a price tag. If it goes
"on the block" for a price, that like totally degrades the
whole concept of achievement, merit, and proficiency
as perquisites to the honor.
I shut up now and go to my room. I do so despise myself
for being disagreeable. Maybe I need a nap.
More information about the SpamCop-Help