> Typically I delete these links (esp. with no message).
>
> But for the sake of myself & newcomers
> .... I assume this and others like it are from our disgruntled friend?

Without analyzing them, its impossible to know who they are from. However,
my guess (caveat: I don't look at them) is that they are automatically
generated, and not from a past or present letterboxer. The technology
to eliminate this form of abuse is fairly trivial to implement, but Yahoo
has not done so.

I wouldn't waste time on them (like we are here :-)). Configure your mail
software to kill messages with the subject "check this out", and "new pictures
here" (shortly, tho, the abuser(s) will change the subject line -- the best
arms race is one you decline to participate in). The volunteer list managers
presently don't have the time to do what it takes to prevent them, so the
effort of remediating them is presently distributed to all subscribers.

> We can expect most nonsense-like screennames to be deviant?

Yep. A good rule of thumb in e-mail is to ignore messages if you don't know
who the sender is.

=======

The following is somewhat off-topic, but, at least to me, somewhat
interesting. It came across another list I subscribe to (where alledged
censorship vs spam remediation is a hot topic (and an important one, as
the list is of such a nature that the moderators, I believe, can be held
liable under anti-trust law for censorship)). You certainly don't have to
read it, but the gist is that the proper (and only logical) response to
unwanted e-mail (be it spam or "hate" or that which offends) is to ignore
it. (I don't totally agree with that thesis, but I mostly do -- the
underlying structure of the thesis is basically right, tho I may not agree
with some word choice, details, and exceptions. Anyway, someone else's
words, not mine, so don't flame me ...

[begin quote]

A large part of "SPAM" is not a matter of marketing. It is a matter of
terrorism, where instead of violence, they conduct annoyance. The persons
creating the vast bulk of the abuse are people trying to terrorize or
annoy people into banning spam. [so and so] said from the start that it
was his goal to make things worse. He has succeeded: More annoying it is.
These people have no real commercial motivation--at least, not with respect
to the services described in the emails they send. They aren't trying to
sell anything by email. They are trying to sabotage the system of email,
and annoy people. One might wonder who would only want to annoy people,
and for what purpose, since they are not trying to sell something.

No matter what kind of system you build, if there is any openness for
people, whatsoever, it will be vulnerable to abuse by people inclined to
conduct such abuse. There is no way to prevent that abuse. You can try to
delete the abuse, after it has occurred. You can implement moderation with
the incumbent delays, and other problems, which are necessary or
unnecessary consequences of moderation. You can complain to the ISP's who
sold accounts to the abusers. Etc. These things are all activities
performed after the fact. Even the moderation staff still has to deal with
the abuse, if the entire list doesn't.

When someone is trying to annoy you, the correct response is not to be
annoyed, but to remain calm. Like terrorism, there is no solution to
spam. Whatever you do, beyond punishing those directly responsible, will
only make the matter worse.

[end quote]