[SpamCop-List] Re: no body, but it is still spam?

[Blammo]

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?

-- 
| Ric
|