[SpamCop-List] Re: no body, but it is still spam?
ric.gates at bigsleep.org
Wed May 5 06:44:05 EDT 2004
On 04 May 2004 N. Miller entered spamcop and left
news:MPG.1b01c3fae6cff40b9896c9 at news.spamcop.net:
> I think it is more that the single '.', on its own line, is an SMTP
> <End-of- Message> indicator. I don't think it actually goes into the
> message. That the SpamCop parser will accept a single dot, separated
> from the headers by a space, suggests that the parser is only looking
> for something in the body. In that case, [no body] is better than .
> because the former indicates that the reporter knew that the message
> was empty.
Yes, you're right. I just prefer altering the message as little as
possible, and I'm lazy. It might be better to put [no body] in, but I
mainly want to get it on the list.
Most ISPs probably don't consider blank messages spam anyhow. And
technically it isn't selling anything is it?
More information about the SpamCop-List