[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IP-Echelon Compliance

Subject: IP-Echelon Compliance
From: trelane at trelane.net (Andrew Kirch)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:43:49 -0400
In-reply-to: <m2pp0hproo.wl%[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <m2vba9pxma.wl%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <m2pp0hproo.wl%[email protected]>

Minimal? Probably 22LR.  I prefer 458SOCOM though.  As Bob Evans notes,
there may be some waiting periods, serial numbers, and background checks
involved.  :)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

> >> http://www.procmail.org/
> > I wouldn't necessarily recommend that approach.  There is no
> > obligation for victims of spammers to continue providing Internet
> > services to them, including SMTP services.
>
> computers are cheap.  my time is finite and i value it highly.  what is
> the minimal action i can take to see that idiots do not take my time?
>
> randy
>

Follow-Ups:
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: morrowc.lists at gmail.com (Christopher Morrow)

References:
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: seth at ip-echelon.com (Seth Arnold)
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: fred at web2objects.com (Fred Hollis)
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: seth at ip-echelon.com (seth at ip-echelon.com)
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: jhellenthal at dataix.net (Jason Hellenthal)
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: rsk at gsp.org (Rich Kulawiec)
- IP-Echelon Compliance
  - From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)

Prev by Date: IP-Echelon Compliance
Next by Date: IP-Echelon Compliance
Previous by thread: IP-Echelon Compliance
Next by thread: IP-Echelon Compliance
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread