Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...
>
>"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com> wrote in message
>
>> When I quoted your post (as a result of you forgetting that you sent
>> it; how can that be if you "just read that post" as you claim always
>> happens?) I obfuscated the part that says where to send the money and
>> what web page to go to to get more info. Thus I, unlike you, did not
>> advertise the spammer's services.
>
>Now this is just condescending. In your superior wisdom, you're
>protecting future readers from seeing a link that you have deemed
>that they need to be protected from. Like, you're treating people
>like children who don't know to click on a link in an obvious spam.
>
>Now, if you'd said that somehow it triggers some machine-driven
>additional spam or something, it might be worth looking into, but
>come on.

I apologize if I seemed condescending. That was not my intent.

Yes, I do believe in doing whatever I can to protect others from
being exposed to the advertising that is in most spam. Passing along
that payload does trigger additional spam (I am not sure why you think
that it being machine-driven or not is important). When advertising
works, the advertiser advertises more. When it doesn't, he doesn't.

The fact of the matter is that many people *are* "children who don't
know to click on a link in an obvious spam." If it were not so,
spamming would not be profitable. Alas, it only takes a tiny percent
to make the spam run pay off.