[Info-vax] SFF and MIME

[Richard B. Gilbert]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <3qWdnfMlF_muSb7WnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d at giganews.com>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> In article <4b2399e2$0$14121$703f8584 at textnews.kpn.nl>, Wilm Boerhout <w6.boerhout at planet.nl> writes:
>>>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG mentioned  on 12-12-2009 14:01:
>>>>> In article <4b234be4$0$14125$703f8584 at textnews.kpn.nl>, Wilm Boerhout <w6.boerhout at planet.nl> writes:
>>>>>> Richard B. Gilbert mentioned  on 12-12-2009 2:45:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...] snipped
>>>>>>> Another term for "mass email" is "Spam".
>>>>>> One man's spam is another man's advertising. Even before the internet, 
>>>>>> businesses forced stuff down my throat and my (physical) mailbox that I 
>>>>>> did not ask for. And anyway, it's just a big conspirary of the server, 
>>>>>> switch and bandwidth guys. Without it, we could do with 90% fewer 
>>>>>> infrastructure, and where would that leave them? An unconvenient truth 
>>>>>> indeed!
>>>>> Those who pay for the bandwidth to send it call it advertisement; those who
>>>>> pay for the bandwidth to receive it call it SPAM.  I'd prefer my money spent
>>>>> for bandwidth to be used for what I want it to be used for and not for that
>>>>> which is forced upon me.  In the days of snail-mailbox fodder, it'd cost me
>>>>> nothing to received that mail but that is not the case with SPAM.  SPAM has
>>>>> numerous costs in terms of bandwidth, CPU cycles, storage and wasted time. 
>>>> The cost of advertising, be it physical or networked, has always been 
>>>> paid for by the users of the advertised products. This is called the 
>>>> marketing communications budget in the cost breakdown.
>>> I don't care what time it is, so I don't need a watch.
>>> I don't golf, so I don't care that a new club drives balls farther.
>>> I'm happily married, so I have no need for Russian brides.
>>> I'm happily married because I don't need Viagra, Cialis, length or girth!
>>>
>>> Therefore, _I_ am not paying to advertise these products.  I am, however,
>>> paying to read their SPAM advertisements.  With SPAM, I'm paying for the
>>> advertisement of products I DO NOT USE nor WOULD I USE.
>>>
>> Try Comcast as your IP.  Very little spam slips through their filters. 
>> I get a little advertising but it's from companies I do business with. 
>> ISTR that they offer me an "opt out" which I have not used.
> 
> Comcast?  Never.
> 
> TMESIS.COM is going on 15 years.  I'm not about to change my email address
> because a bunch of puerile script-kiddies have taken over someone's unsec-
> ured web server and are using it to SPAM.
> 

Then you will either have to create your own spam filters or, as you 
have done, get your correspondents to include a key that tells your 
mailer that the sender is someone you know.