Forum Moderators: open
Has anyone ever done this?
Has anyone ever done this?
I haven't gone that far yet. However, sometimes I want to ask that person with the sexy female name out on a date.
(Yes, I know it's really a 50 year old guy, who is probably overweight and hasn't shaved or gotten out of his pajamas in 2 weeks. But, does he know that I know that?)
Has anyone ever done this?
Many many years ago . . on a planet far, far away . . . . I made this mistake.
The result was a rash of whiny emails, "you haven't a clue what it's like for a poor little business owner to make it in the big bad world," which was followed by listing that email address with every spam service they could find. It's just not worth it.
Spam Cop them [spamcop.net] and call it a day. It's still unsolicited email, so by definition, deserves a SpamCop.
And I swear, sometimes, momentarily. Hey it's better than throwing a perfectly good monitor out the window.
It's still unsolicited email, so by definition, deserves a SpamCop.
Which is not to say it SHOULDN'T be SpamCopped <-- is that an allowable verb form..., just that its not in the definition.
</pedantry>
Otherwise I'm with ken_b. Delete it.
"UCE" refers specifically to unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Wiki [en.wikipedia.org]
spam, junk e-mail (unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk))
(emph. mine)
Princeton [wordnetweb.princeton.edu]
Key word: unsolicited. If you didn't ask for it, it's spam, even just one. No gray area.
First thing I note is the selectivness of your quote. Lets see an expansion of your quote
Definitions of spam usually include the aspects that email is unsolicited and sent in bulk.[1][2][3][4][5] "UCE" refers specifically to unsolicited commercial e-mail.
As for the Princeton quote, I think its clear a comma was missed off, thus proving my point. It should read:
unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature, sent out in bulk)
A legalistic reading would therefore be that "usually" is a modifier for the condition "of a commercial nature", leaving "sent out in bulk" to be a necessary aspect of the definition.
Has anyone ever done this?
There's a thread around here somewhere that goes something like....
Site "a" got the brush off like that from site "b". Sometime later, after site "a" had become a success, they got a link request from site "b" that brushed them off.
I guess the moral of the story is that the site you rudely brush off today may be the site you want a link from later.
Worth thinking about.
esteemed fellow member.
HA. No steemin' here, oy. lol
