Re: Let's flame this guy (was: READ THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!)

Article View: bc.bcnet

Article #1182

#1182

From: mbinning
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 00:00

8 lines
872 bytes

I'm with you guys, if anyone's counting.
I try to avoid the follow-up articles as well as the originals.


>Am I the only one who 
>sees these flames against spam , that contain the entire spam, and thinks
>that the flamer might be in cahoots with the spammer?

Technical Details

Message-ID: <50kgo3$3p5@ktk2.smartt.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References: <4vdf4u$ctg@atlas.uniserve.com> <321a4ffa.0@endeavor.newcomm.net> <4ve0fs$njg@hendrix.postino.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 106393,85dee76161f7c2a4
X-Google-Attributes: gid106393,public
X-Google-Thread: 1083bf,85dee76161f7c2a4
X-Google-Attributes: gid1083bf,public
From: mbinning@smartt.com
Subject: Re: Let's flame this guy (was: READ THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!)
Date: 1996/09/04
Message-ID: <50kgo3$3p5@ktk2.smartt.com>
X-Deja-AN: 178477261
references: <4vdf4u$ctg@atlas.uniserve.com> <321a4ffa.0@endeavor.newcomm.net> <4ve0fs$njg@hendrix.postino.com>
organization: KTK Communications Ltd. (SmarttNet, http://www.smartt.com)
newsgroups: bc.bcnet,van.general

Reply to Parent Message