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

[Andrew Engels Rump (formerly Leif Andrew Rump)]

I demand that SJones <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> may or may not have 
written in news:ev97dq$kj6$1 at news.spamcop.net:
> 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
>>> 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.
> 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.

Everyone should do as you describe instead of sending (huge) files using
e-mail. That is the best way of using the bandwidth.

I am only looking on how SpamCop should handle links to images which is
not shown directly in the e-mail - just as you refer your family & 
friends to the images on an external website.

Andrew Engels Rump
-- 
Software Engineer
E-mail: mailto:newandrew at rump.dk
WWW: http://www.rump.dk/homepage/andrew/