tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4677316190423110840.post1763035594287465323..comments2008-02-05T20:11:49.449+01:00Paweł Baruthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867021334037413869noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4677316190423110840.post-89126944936090263742008-02-05T20:11:00.000+01:002008-02-05T20:11:00.000+01:00John,<BR/><BR/>Well, then it will be expensive lesson learned. Next time those people will pay more attention for security of theirs computers. <BR/>And on the other hand there will be more pressure to prosecute spammers, as they cause financial damages to people.<BR/><BR/>PawełPaweł Baruthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867021334037413869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4677316190423110840.post-37631036520330870322008-02-04T10:51:00.000+01:002008-02-04T10:51:00.000+01:00Pawel,<BR/><BR/>Personally I'm very much against option 3, remember that many spammers don't use their own machines for sending out spam, they use networks of hijacked machines.<BR/><BR/>Option 3 could be extremely costly to someone who has unwittingly had their machine compromised by a spammer.<BR/><BR/>John.John Scotthttp://jes.blogs.shellprompt.netnoreply@blogger.com