> 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?

randy@mapsurfer.com writes:

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. ....
I wouldn't waste time on them (like we are here :-)).   ......

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

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.  ....

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]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/