Shouldn't this person be banned for spamming?
Suppose something happens, he extends his holiday; we will see his
spam everyday now, don't tell me just six days to go... This could
go on forever :(
Who cares he is out of the office?
I don't!
--- In "" <> wrote:
> You have been sent this message as an automatic response to your
email sent recently to
>
> Gordon is away from his desk until Aug. 25th, when he will read
your email and respond immediately.
>
> If your matter is urgent, please call him on his cell phone: USA
360-477-9588.
>
> Thank you for your patience.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:27:46 2005
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:03:45 -0000
From: "Rich Peet" <>
Subject: Re: [SPAM ALERT] out of the office until 8/25 [SPAM ALERT]
There are only a few names that are really seen often and remembered
in the study of Natural Sounds in the US. Like Wil and Lang that
answered my cricket post Gordon is also one of those names.
Because we know that he isn't to fond of computers it is easy for me
to cut him slak. But Jim can check to see if he can manually suspend
and then re-join him at the end of the month.
Most, like me will just get remembered as more good smamp muck.
Rich Peet
--- In "Evert Veldhuis"
<> wrote:
> Shouldn't this person be banned for spamming?
>
> Suppose something happens, he extends his holiday; we will see his
> spam everyday now, don't tell me just six days to go... This could
> go on forever :(
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
>From Tue Mar 8 18:27:46 2005
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:06:43 -0700
From: "Jim Morgan" <>
Subject: test
test
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|