RE: Spam = harrassment
From: TR Ruddick (
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:46:12 -0700 (MST)
Hey, Liz--

I can't tell for sure, but when I read the original message it sounded to
me like the Marcus' 2nd paragraph was discussing the recent spam attacks on
the list.  Not that he was claiming that being unable to figure out how to
set it to digest constituted a form of harassment.

Tho' your interpretation could be the correct one, I can see how it's
equally valid.  Maybe Marcus would like to clarify for everyone?  (If his
eyes are not too teary red over a potentially undeserved rebuke...)

If my interpretation is the right one, then my answer would be "yes",
constant loading of your inbox with unwanted messages is plainly
harassment.  Now good luck trying to enforce it!

> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 16:51:59 -0800 (PST)
> From: Seattle Skyscrapers <seattleskys [at]>

> I've tried to be on the digest instead of getting each
> message, but it seems that I haven't done something
> right.
> Can't spam be viewed as an attack, especially when
> someone or someone(s) find a way to get into group
> lists then bombard the lists with emails that are out
> of place?
> Marcus

> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 20:16:18 -0800
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_Spam = Harrassment?
> From: Elizabeth Stevenson <tamgoddess [at]>
> What about people who write to the whole list to whine when they need to
> write to the list manager instead? What about people who are too lazy to
> figure out the address to write to when it's on EVERY single email from
> list? Isn't that spam? Don't you have anything else to do with your time
> than inventing injustices?

____  _
    |     |_)             Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick
    |     |  \             Nunquam Itum Agitabilum

Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.