At 15:35 3/07/03 +1200, Richard Parkinson wrote:
>I must say that I also disagree with the method of advertising chosen. Had
>I been consulted I would have recommended against it, but in saying that,
>I welcome email in my inbox that relates directly to my line of business
>and would rather receive such email as opposed to the ones about
>increasing the size of certain body parts or some other "amazing offer"
>which we see all to often of late, depending on how good your mail filters
>are.
>
Sorry, but that doesn't wash with me, or I suspect most members of the
list. Spam is Spam whether its trying to sell me Viagra or Bandwidth.
Anybody that received that mailout (fortunately I didn't) who had no
previous business dealings with Net4U could be legitimately annoyed by it.
The sample "message" appeared to be addressed to soa@ which suggests it
might have been taken from domain or APNIC contact details.
>It doesn't take much for everyone to see that some of you are making an
>issue simply because it's Sahil and Net4U, and because you were a reject
>at school who was picked on and bullied, and now have a psychological
>disorder resulting in you playing out the role of your boyhood deamon from
>school, dishing out what you received.
>
Pot, Kettle, Black ?
Regards,
Simon
