🚀 go-pugleaf

Philip Brown <phil.s2@bolthole.no-bots.com> wrote:

: I had to post this, just for the humor value.
: Don't YOU want to talk to a "Sofisticated" woman?

: :-) :-) :-)

Heck, it's even worse for me.  I'm not into "sofistication", and
I doubt I'd be interested in talking to a woman about what this
woman is prepared to discuss. ;>  (I just checked my spam folder
and I got the same thing -- the Spam Bouncer is pretty good at
spotting porno cr*p.)


-- 
Catherine Hampton <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
Home Page          *          <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
The Spam Bouncer   *    <http://www.hrweb.org/spambouncer/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)

Catherine Hampton <xzm@hrweb.org> wrote:
| Philip Brown <phil.s2@bolthole.no-bots.com> wrote:
| 
>: I had to post this, just for the humor value.
>: Don't YOU want to talk to a "Sofisticated" woman?
| 
>: :-) :-) :-)
| 
| Heck, it's even worse for me.  I'm not into "sofistication", and
| I doubt I'd be interested in talking to a woman about what this
| woman is prepared to discuss. ;>  (I just checked my spam folder
| and I got the same thing -- the Spam Bouncer is pretty good at
| spotting porno cr*p.)

Speaking of "unusual" UCE, I received one yesterday that was quite a bit
different from anything else I've seen (sorry, it's already deleted).

Basically, it appeared to be a "friendly" email mentioning a web site at
which one can register to win a $5,000 stainless-steel BBQ grill, and it
concluded with (paraphrased) "... and if you win the grill will you invite
me over next Summer?".  Needless to say, I didn't know/recognize the sender.

The tip-off was that both the "From: " and "To: " addresses were the same;
I consider anything that doesn't have my name in the "To: " field to be UCE
with only 2 exceptions (2 mail-lists I'm on).

If the email came from a "sofisticated" woman I might have responded.  :-)

Thad