Am I missing something here?
How smart can SmartList be if the listowners can't keep spammers from
abusing list members? This kind of stuff is just d-u-m-b.
mp
Return-Path: increase$$(_at_)ns(_dot_)bulnet(_dot_)com
Return-Path: <increase$$(_at_)ns(_dot_)bulnet(_dot_)com>
Received: from mail.teleport.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by localhost.teleport.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA23207
for <michael>; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:48:39 -0800
Received: by mail1 for looie
(with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.21 1997/08/10) Sun Mar 22 11:40:43 1998)
X-From_: procmail-request(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de Sun Mar
22 11:10:45 1998
Received: from campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
(campino.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE [137.226.116.240]) by smtp1.teleport.com
(8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA20715; Sun, 22 Mar 1998 11:10:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from lists(_at_)localhost)
by campino.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (8.8.8/8.8.8/1) id TAA27650;
Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:36:46 +0100 (MET)
Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 19:36:46 +0100 (MET)
From: increase$$(_at_)ns(_dot_)bulnet(_dot_)com
To: MAIL(_dot_)COM(_at_)ns(_dot_)bulnet(_dot_)com (INCREASE)
Message-ID: <MAIL(INCREASE).COM>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 98 09:39:11 EST
Subject: EMAIL ADVERTISING
Reply-To: MAIL(_dot_)COM(_at_)ns(_dot_)bulnet(_dot_)com (INCREASE)
Comments: Authenticated sender is <MAIL(INCREASE).COM>
Resent-Message-ID: <"0xKTcB.A.pWG.i-UF1"@campino>
Resent-From: procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de
X-Mailing-List: <procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de>
archive/latest/16999
X-Loop: procmail(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: procmail-request(_at_)informatik(_dot_)rwth-aachen(_dot_)de
"Let it alone; let's to billiards: come, Charmian." <Cleopatra>
-- William Shakespeare