[SpamCop-List] Re: OT: PING DAVID 1 re messages

[David 1]

Pop wrote:
> David 1 wrote:
> 
>>>snapped>>>
> 
> ===> "snapped"?  Sorry, couldn't resist - I sat here with a "what 
> the..." look for a couple seconds before it sunk in <g>. I 
> thought maybe you were saying you'd snapped!
> 
> I know I said I wouldn't respond to you any further, but, I 
> noticed something today during housekeeping that explains why 
> your email looked so strange to me:  You mailed me  in HTML 
> format and I read in Plain Text.  That pretty much messed up 
> anything resembling format when it was displayed to me.  When I 
> receive a mail in HTML, I  click Reply if I want to see what it 
> was supposed to look like, which I just did with yours, and it 
> suddenly was pretty plain what you meant.
>    Word of advice:  Anyone in a newsgroup, especially this one, 
> may well also be viewing e-mails in Plain Text, not HTML, so, to 
> be sure the message has a readable format when it's read, use 
> Plain Text.  I read in Plain Text and respond in whatever format 
> I received.
> 
>>>>Tom aka Pop
>>>>---
>>>>new sig TBD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>did you at lest look in the s.spam & see if it was you or not 
>>>cause I
>>>got another one in my in box that looks just like the original 
>>>one
>>>that I replied to & as far as being "Had Spampal not picked
>>>up on you and had you more clearly indicated what the mail was
>>>about early in the mail, there would have been little at issue
>>>here."
> 
> ===> I don't understand the above; at all.  No, I didn't look 
> over in .spam.  I didn't see any reason to.  Did you ask me to 
> clarify or confirm something?  If so, I missed it.  At this point 
> I don't see it worth getting back into, either.
> 
> 
>>>... WEll gee I used the same subject line that was in the post 
>>>&
>>>the email that was sent to me BY WHO EVER sent it (yes I 
>>>thought it
>>>was you why wouldn't I)
> 
> ===> I noticed that, belatedly, but you have to understand I 
> never saw the quoted subject due to the Spam tag added to the 
> email Subject line.  Whenever something is tagged as spam and I 
> don't know the sender, it dumps righjt into my spam bin for 
> reporting; I have no use for spammer's subject lines.   I -did- 
> recognize your name in time to prevent reporting it though, as 
> that's what caused me to look down at the body o the mail.   With 
> the lost HTML format, it didn't really make much sense.  And so 
> on; sorry, I don't mean to be beating a dead horse here.
> 
> 
> 
>>>... Gee I quoted everything I always do how
>>>could you not see the revealence of a discussion that you
>>>participated it in.
> 
> ===>  I notice you're using Mozilla, so not sure, but if you take 
> a look at your last email in Plain Text mode, I think you'll see 
> what I saw and agree with my initial assessment.
> 
> 
>>>as far as the hiding statement, I dont use a bogus addy cause 
>>>that Is
>>>hiding. I dont care if others do it but I have to keep my side 
>>>of the
>>>street clean.
> 
> ===> I have ZERO idea what you're talking about there.  Kindly 
> clarify how I accused you of hiding.  I didn't.
> 
> 
>>>I got accused of sending UNasked for mail,
> 
> ===> So, what's the problem with that?  -I- never accused you of 
> that; someone else did.  And, as I recall, it was a constructive 
> comment so you shouldn't get out of joint over it.
>    I suspect if you had read the FAQs you might have gotten along 
> a lot better and had fewer liver quivers here.  It's worth 
> checking the FAQs in ANY newsgroup, and this one makes it real 
> easy to find; most don't.  When the FAQ is easy to find, there is 
> usually a good reason for it.
> 
> 
>>>... NOW maybe I did because
>>>someone forged your addy into it.
> 
> ===>  Don't think so; that happened a couple years ago but I've 
> changed my name since then.
> 
> 
>>>... You folks may have the time & the
> 
> ===> No, I don't.  That's why I use Spampal.
> 
> 
>>>knowledge to examine the headers of every single mail you get 
>>>but I
> 
> ===>  No, I don't.  That's what programs like SpamPal are for.
> 
> 
>>>don't nore do I intend to that mail looked legit, the subject 
>>>matched
>>>what was going on in the groups, the content in the message 
>>>matched
>>>what was going on in the groups,
> 
> ===> Yes, it did and I've chewed that over twice for you so far; 
> don't think it needs to be done again.
> 
> 
>>> ...  sorry personally I think you sent
>>>it,
> 
> ===>I probably did, and have never denied it.  Is that what 
> you're talking about being over in .spam?    Had you actually 
> read anything I wrote, you would understand more and not still be 
> quibbling about it.  Again, I've chewed that one enough times 
> also.
> 
> I answered it. you accused me of spamming you,
> ===>  No, I never accused you of spamming me.  SHOW me where I 
> accused you of spamming me.  I DID explain why it looked like 
> spam, and why it almost got reported.  Your ISP, or at least the 
> IP you used/use, dynamic or whatever, IS or WAS spamming, and is 
> still listed as a spammer in the database that was listed on the 
> Subject line.  You can either believe me or not, but if you 
> bother to go to that list and check it, you'll see it IS listed 
> for spamming.  That doesn't mean YOU are spamming; it DOES mean 
> someone at your ISP IS spamming though, or has had a dos attack 
> or some such thing.    If you have a static IP, it means someone 
> IS spamming, from YOUR machine!  You -could- have been zombied, 
> but I don't think so, unless maybe you do have a static IP.
> 
> I dont take that
> 
>>>lightly
> 
> ===> And you shouldn't, but you're getting way too much mileage 
> out of it.  Now, had I reported you, you might have had something 
> to bitch about, but ONE erroneous spam report isn't going to hurt 
> you if your ISP has more than three braincells.
> 
> 
>>>... & then you say your giving me a "wide latitude" for trying
>>>to help,
> 
> ===> No, I gave you wide latitude because of your newbie 
> appearance, and even tried to give you supporting information to 
> help you understand it.  Normally you'd get a nasty-gram and I 
> might consider plonking you, but that would be it.  You -should- 
> have been interested since you're interested in anti spam, but it 
> seems you're more into feeling sorry for yourself, no offense.
> 
> 
>>> ... gee yeah I guess I'm a little pissed The message is 
>>>sitting
>>>in s.spam if you care to check it out.
> 
> ===>  Yes, I'll be happy to check it, but ... the only thing 
> there is an entry from me, a message I posted on 12/26/04, and it 
> has nothing to do with anything you've approached, far's I can 
> tell.  If you posted anything there since the 26th, I sure don't 
> see it.  If you want to give me something to search on, I'll look 
> thru the old messages, but it looks like I haven't been to .spam 
> since the 26th, so ... unless something's screwed up it's not 
> there.  I'll check it again later tonite when I come online if I 
> can remember.
>       Actually, it looks like something's not loading right in 
> ..spam.  The progress bar gets midway and then stops, where all 
> the other groups seem to be OK.  Hmmm.
> 
> ....
> 
> ===> I'll reiterate a piece of unsolicited advice I gave you a 
> couple days  ago:  You really should not use your real email 
> address in the clear like you're doing.  Newsgroups are often 
> crawled by spammers' softwares, and it's a good way to increase 
> your spam counts.    If you frequent many newsgroups and have 
> your address on all of them, you are probably already getting or 
> are about to get, a pretty good load of spam.
>    It's no skin off my nose, but I thought I'd repeat it since 
> you seem to have read so little of what I have already said.
> 
> There:  NOW I'm done communicating with you.  I tried to help you 
> understand some things, but apparently you're too far into NIH to 
> work out the reality of the situation.  I have no further desire 
> to communicate with you.
> 
> Pop
> 
> 
> 
> 

I guess so as long as you get your stuff in & somebody deleted my post 
in s.spam prolly because it proves Pop sent it, WEll Pop I still have 
the email if you want it you know my address & unless somebody forged 
you already have but I didn't answer it lord knows I don't want you 
blasting me again for answering you.

-- 

David 1
bad addy
spamtrap at suescornerweb.com