Talk:Spam (e-mail): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Bruce M. Tindall (→Two articles on spam: new section) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Two articles on spam: should be merged) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
These two articles should probably be merged. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) | These two articles should probably be merged. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Absolutely. The question is, Under which name? Or maybe even a third one? (They're not quite duplicates, one of them has more info than the other.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:41, 10 January 2009
|
| Metadata here |
First spammers
Shouldn't there be a mention of the egregious Phoenix lawyers (husband and wife), who were the first imbeciles to send out spam -- I'm pretty sure that this is well-documented.... Hayford Peirce 12:26, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
- You mean Canter & Siegel, right? One thing to remember is that they were the first commercial spam on Usenet; there had been other spam before. J. Noel Chiappa 13:03, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
- Yup. I remember reading about them at the time but I was still 2 years away from my first Internet connection. Here they are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canter_&_Siegel Too bad that Drawing and quartering has gone out of fashion.... Like Ralph Nader, however, I believe that they are (were) unrepentant.... One, however, is apparently dead and is, I hope, roasting away.... Hayford Peirce 13:16, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
Two articles on spam
This article appears to be a duplicate of the one at spam (internet)
These two articles should probably be merged. Bruce M.Tindall 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. The question is, Under which name? Or maybe even a third one? (They're not quite duplicates, one of them has more info than the other.) Hayford Peirce 01:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)