On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 05:26:12 +0900, 
"Josef 'Jupp' Schugt" <jupp / gmx.de> wrote:

> Jason Creighton wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:29:03 GMT, 
> > "Billy Wright" <billywright0402 / hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>Now get 6 U.S. $1.00 bills and place ONE inside of EACH of the six pieces
> >>of paper so the bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent
> >>thievery).
> > 
> > Get in this pyramid scheme and then *prevent* thievery? That's gonna be
> > a little tricky...
> 
> I don't think it is a very good idea to reply to junk mail. My index 
> finger was already over the 'j' to mark your message as junk.
> 
> Background: Junk mail often happens to have a 'Re:' at the beginning 
> of the subject even though it is an initial (and hopefully terminal 
> as well :-) message. If the original junk has already been deleted it 
> is not too easy to see that the 'Re:' is in fact a reply (at least 
> without taking a look at the header).

*nods*

Okay, I won't mock any more spam on this newsgroup/mailing list, if that
will make some persons's[1] spam filtration easier.

[1] Somehow, this doesn't seem the correct way of phrasing that.

Jason Creighton