From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ec0a9fbc1ea1ff7fca55c482a1c873e9@caldo.demon.co.uk>
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: SPAM: Re: [9fans] spam rejection after reception does have limits
In-Reply-To: <ejKdnUgMFtxCTOuiXTWJkQ@comcast.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:44:41 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 553fa05a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>>If you think that "setting an example" would help much,
>>look at previous prosecution of hackers and see what a
>>deterrent it was.

clearly it didn't deter them all,
but how can we know that that
detection and prosecution didn't deter
some, perhaps even quite a few, from attempting it?