[Scspamcop] Re: SpamCop don't detect imageshack.us

[SJones]

On or about 4/7/2007 3:56 PM, Andrew Engels Rump (formerly Leif Andrew
Rump) penned the following:
> I demand that Tim McGraw <tmcgraw at spamcop.net> may or may not have
> written in news:euru8k$aae$1 at news.spamcop.net: 
>> Andrew Engels Rump wrote:
>>> Hmm. graphic links to me is something enclosed in <img src="...">.
>>> I see you point but I don't agree because I think the spammers has
>>> found a new way to avoid reporting of spam sites.
>> Too often graphics links are innocent bystanders.
> 
> Agree but they have IMHO to be inclosed in <img src="..."> to be of
> any use for the spammer, i.e., to give the spam a tasty look :-)
> An URL to an image which the receiver has to follow don't give the
> spammer value unless the image is the spam, i.e., it should be
> reportable - I don't care if the checkboxes are default off.
> 
> Andrew Engels Rump

I post pictures of my grandchild in imageshack.us.  And I direct those
who want to know (family & friends) to that site.  I do not send the
pictures directly to them, just a link to the page.  AOL has been
blocking my e-mail to family that have the link in the e-mail.  These
are not spam!  They keep my usage of the internet down and keep me from
sending large e-mails to my family that have 56KB dial-ups.  Yes, not
everyone has fiber optics.  I think I have finally gotten AOL to
white-list - at least my e-mail is getting through since last night.

-- 
SJones