 | | Re: LEGO for Life Sweepstakes —Mike Stanley
|
| | | (...) Uh, is that $2,000 worth annually for life? :) Otherwise it would just be Lego for a Year for a lot of us. (25 years ago, 4-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LEGO for Life Sweepstakes —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | Fatal flaw in that sweepstakes I hope they correct - one entry per EMAIL ADDRESS. Anyone that owns a domain like I do could enter as many times as they want to take the time to (I didn't, I only entered once, though I might enter my wife). (...) Tom (...) (25 years ago, 5-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO for Life Sweepstakes —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) Yup, me too. 'Course, I probably have 10 or so legitimate e-mail addresses also... (25 years ago, 5-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO for Life Sweepstakes —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Yeah no kidding. We're running qmail on our mail server, so mattdm-[anything]@mattdm.org is a valid e-mail address. I could legally enter a very large number of times. (25 years ago, 5-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO for Life Sweepstakes —James Brown
|
| | | | (...) Heck, I could enter (any alphanumeric combiniation)@shades...-night.com and it would be a valid e-mail address. Our domain is currently set up that way to avoid mis-directed mail (typos, etc) James (URL) (25 years ago, 5-Oct-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
