Re: IP-Echelon Compliance

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

pretty certain that the list ought not be pushing for bodily harm to
individuals...
it's fair to say: "trash all their mail" or "block their mailservers
at the edge"

but calling out hits .. not cool.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane () trelane net> wrote:
> 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 () 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