urgent business/investment deal

Sellam Ismail wrote: Maybe you would find it addresses your annoyance more satisfactorily to go to your nearest friendly local ambitious DA keen to to be seen as tough on Internet fraud, and offer him or her this here low-hanging fruit. Call in the FTC, FDIC, your bank manager, etc. and set up a sting. Whatever. Then, when you find out who it is, and where they are, let me know and I'll gladly go beat the living crap out of them. However, annoying as spam may be, I don't see how that justifies turning the list into a ghetto. Restricting access because it might be abused is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It punishes the innocent as well as the guilty. That's just wrong, whatever you think about spam. There's no valid reason for this list to be restricted this way. It's also damaging. The people we want to reach are precisely those who will frankly just not bother to offer old gear to be rescued if they have to go to the trouble of subscribing. Personally, I will unsubscribe if this happens. Jay, are you using DCC? Vixie himself is endorsing it. It potentially suffers the same objection, but it can be targeted with a lot more accuracy and precision, at least in principle. If you need a checksum source, I've got quite a nice collection here, too. jbdigriz