 | | Re: spamcake collection
|
| (...) That's what I was planning on doing. I can also delete lousier or message- content-reliant ones at the same time, as the latter don't stand by themselves for use in any old message. But I wasn't about to discourage anyone if they could do it. (...) (27 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: spamcake collection
|
| <378FBF59.7B8E83D0@io.com> <FEznMB.K5z@lugnet.com> <FEzo55.KyI@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) For the sample set we have now. But what if EVERYONE starts doing the 'cake thing. This is (...) (27 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: spamcake collection
|
| (...) Sounds like quite a challenging problem in its extreme... :) Since there are only about 350 of 'em, and editing will probably be necessary on most of 'em anyway, I'll bet it's quicker just to pop the whole thing into an editor and delete stuff (...) (27 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: spamcake collection
|
| That algorithm won't find the following (because "spamcake" appears two lines later not one line later): (URL) the following (because "spamcake" appears in the rare alternate form "spampucks"): (URL) like to also point out that you aren't matching (...) (27 years ago, 17-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | Re: spamcake collection
|
| (...) <FEzKnJ.F9n@lugnet.com> (...) What about a footnote? I've used those too. Usually they are formatted, "(1) foo blah glorp". (...) download (...) I'm (...) Forget my pandering. Doesn't have to be free. (...) That would work. (...) I don't do (...) (27 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.pun, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
|
