list@ListMe.com wrote:
> From owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org Fri May 8 09:25:01 1998
> Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:18:42 -0400
> Message-Id: <199805081518.LAA22620@rover.listme.com>
> From: list@ListMe.com
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
> Reply-To: list@ListMe.com
> Subject: [HACKERS] Your Search Engine Listing
> Sender: owner-pgsql-hackers@hub.org
> Precedence: bulk
>
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>
> Is your site listed with the top search engines? ListMe will
> list you with 50 search engines and indexes for $90.
> Satisfaction guaranteed!
>
> Search engines are the only way most people have to find internet sites.
> But if your site is not listed, no one will find it.
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
It seems that no fileter will make us truly immune from SPAM, so for
better or worse, here is my proposed spam-hunter (tm) clause:
Purpose of the mailing list
The primary purpose of this mailing list is the discussion of ongoing
work to the Postgres database. Discussions of other databases,
especially as they compare with Postgres are also 'on topic'. Any
commercial postings including, but not limited to: Chain letters,
Pyramid schemes, "Make Money Fast", direct marketing schemes, web site
advertising, software advertising or any other type of advertising are
considered unsolicited email (SPAM).
These SPAM postings waste the time and resources of the volunteer
Postgres developers. Therefore, in the interest of keeping the
Postgres mailing list free SPAM, the Postgres organization will charge
a fee of $50 per line for all such postings. In addition to the $50
per line, fees may be charged for expenses related to collecting the
fee, including, but not limited to: postage, detective services and
collection services.
I voulenteer myself as an Internet PI. I don't think it makes much
sense to pay someone up-front to track down a spammer.
So what does everyone think?
Ocie