People who reply to spammers [was: Re: I need some cleanings tips and advice.]

[Lew]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:11:58 +0000, Colin B. replied to a spammer with:
> 
>> Let's see if I get this right.
>>
>> You create a website for a subject that you know nothing about. Then you
>> try to solicit content in a bunch of programming language newsgroups.
>>
>> Wow, that's pretty pathetic, even for a google-groups poster!
>>
>> Begone with you.
> 
> You know, my ISP did a pretty good job of recognizing the original post as
> spam, and dropped it, so I never even saw it until your post came along.
> So I wonder, who is more pathetic -- the spammer, who at least is hoping
> to make money from his rudeness, or idiots who try to reason with spammers
> AND include the spam in their reply?
> 
> Thanks a lot Colin, I really appreciate you finding a way to bypass the
> spam filtering. Not.
> 
> (You know, if I were a spammer, I would disguise my spam as an indignant
> response to spam, thus guaranteeing a vastly greater audience.)
> 
> Colin, if that doesn't convince you to STOP ENGAGING SPAMMERS IN
> DISCUSSION, no matter how witty you think your reply is, let me
> point out that by rudely including the text of the spam in your
> post, you are associating your name and email address with spam. That
> might not be such a good thing to do as more and more people use Bayesian
> filtering. 

Oh, hush.  What fun is life when you can't unleash your venom on a spammer who 
probably will never read it?

Take a chill pill and enjoy the fun.

-- 
Lew