About the current spam

The "hostels" spam is coming from IP address 76.81.31.3. Complaints can be
sent to .

The "bio-pro" spam is coming from IP address 205.188.116.75. Complaints
can be sent to .

As always, be sure to include the entire post, including all the
"headers". With most programs, you can simply type "h" to see the headers;
with Outlook Express, try Ctrl-F3.

--
Yves Bellefeuille

On May 6, 1:27 pm, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
The "hostels" spam is coming from IP address 76.81.31.3. Complaints can be
sent to .

The "bio-pro" spam is coming from IP address 205.188.116.75. Complaints
can be sent to .

As always, be sure to include the entire post, including all the
"headers". With most programs, you can simply type "h" to see the headers;
with Outlook Express, try Ctrl-F3.

--
Yves Bellefeuille


they are NOT spams dear,
wishing you all the best,
Albert

On May 6, 1:27 pm, Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
The "hostels" spam is coming from IP address 76.81.31.3. Complaints can be
sent to .

The "bio-pro" spam is coming from IP address 205.188.116.75. Complaints
can be sent to .

As always, be sure to include the entire post, including all the
"headers". With most programs, you can simply type "h" to see the headers;
with Outlook Express, try Ctrl-F3.

--
Yves Bellefeuille


and I work for Google Company California !!!

In article ,
says...
The "hostels" spam is coming from IP address 76.81.31.3. Complaints can be
sent to .

The "bio-pro" spam is coming from IP address 205.188.116.75. Complaints
can be sent to .


Thanks. I just sent two spam reports.
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe

"World's Best Hostels and Cheap Accommodations, Worldwide Online Booking"
wrote in message
ups.com...
they are NOT spams dear,
wishing you all the best,
Albert

And the Pope is not a Catholic.


--
Donald R. Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
The "hostels" spam is coming from IP address 76.81.31.3. Complaints can be
sent to .

The "bio-pro" spam is coming from IP address 205.188.116.75. Complaints
can be sent to .

As always, be sure to include the entire post, including all the
"headers". With most programs, you can simply type "h" to see the headers;
with Outlook Express, try Ctrl-F3.


What's in it for the spammer other than being a royal pain in the ass?
Is he actually going to get paid for driving people to that websit?

On Sun, 06 May 2007, nospam wrote:

What's in it for the spammer other than being a royal pain in the ass?

This spammer is particularly dim. Most spammers don't care if they're
annoying everybody as long as they make money, but this particular
spammer doesn't even seem to realize that he's doing himself more harm
than good.

At least his website is entertaining, if you want to see an example of
atrocious web design. The HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org/
reports 547 errors.

--
Yves Bellefeuille

On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:05:29 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007, nospam wrote:

What's in it for the spammer other than being a royal pain in the ass?

This spammer is particularly dim. Most spammers don't care if they're
annoying everybody as long as they make money, but this particular
spammer doesn't even seem to realize that he's doing himself more harm
than good.

At least his website is entertaining, if you want to see an example of
atrocious web design. The HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org/
reports 547 errors.

Wow!

As a totally incompetent html user, I use "blogger" to
create my blogs. On my latest on "Slovenia "I got 334 errors
according to that - and all I did was use the "compose"
template.

Should I do anything about it or just muddle on with
blogger?


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Venice, Aquileia and Trieste
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/

On Mon, 07 May 2007 02:36:42 GMT, Alan S
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 22:05:29 -0400, Yves Bellefeuille
wrote:

On Sun, 06 May 2007, nospam wrote:

What's in it for the spammer other than being a royal pain in the ass?

This spammer is particularly dim. Most spammers don't care if they're
annoying everybody as long as they make money, but this particular
spammer doesn't even seem to realize that he's doing himself more harm
than good.

At least his website is entertaining, if you want to see an example of
atrocious web design. The HTML validator at http://validator.w3.org/
reports 547 errors.

Wow!

As a totally incompetent html user, I use "blogger" to
create my blogs. On my latest on "Slovenia "I got 334 errors
according to that - and all I did was use the "compose"
template.

Should I do anything about it or just muddle on with
blogger?

PS 442 errors/warnings etc on the diabetes version. Should I
worry? What are the implications of this?


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Venice, Aquileia and Trieste
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/

On Mon, 07 May 2007, Alan S wrote:

PS 442 errors/warnings etc on the diabetes version. Should I worry? What
are the implications of this?

This means that your Web page may not appear properly (or at all) with
some WWW clients (Internet Explorer, Netscape, Firefox, Opera, and so on).

I'm old fashioned and do HTML by hand, but I realize that's not
reasonable for most users. I'm not sure what to suggest, though. Search
for "writing HTML" or "learning HTML" and see if you find something that's
useful.

--
Yves Bellefeuille