Tung-chiang Yang wites:
# However, you raised an interesting question here. Many people (especially
# those posting in "news.admin.net-abuse.xxx" hierarchy) have started posting
# with modified addresses so human beings with intelligence can resolve them
# while programs/machines cannot, like
#
# tcyang@netcom.NOSPAM.com
# tc_removethispart_yang@netcom.com
# tcyang@netcom.com*
I'm sorry but I totally disagree with this approach. It fixes nothing. This is
not a new topic for discussion. It has been active on various forums including
the moderators mailing list.
Your view that programs can't correct addresses like what you have described
is absolutely bogus. Any programmer with any background in email environments
could correctly convert these back. Articles should be replyable to and FAQs
are originated as articles. By doing what you have proposed you are making
the problem worse for your readers, the same folks you are trying to help
by answering their frequently asked questions.
If you say that you'll put the correct address in the Reply-To: field, well
what's to stop a person from checking the other headers if they were looking
for an email address.
If you tell me that you can fix their wagons by putting your address somewhere
in the text of your FAQ, like maybe only in your signature, well... These type
of scum are not looking for your specific email address. Don't kid yourselves.
They are looking for *any* email address. So why stop with the headers ? Take
a look at how easy it is to extract email or any other electronic addresses
from straight text by looking at any of the hypertext faq archives. I assure
you it is not a mystical science. It is *very* easy to do. And once you have
isolated all the email addresses in a posting what's to stop the software from
picking apart the address itself and running all matters of checks on it ?
Nothing!
# The question is what happens when we do use this kind of modified addresses
# when posting to "news.answers".
Besides messing up the Periodic Postings listing and potentially confusing
the archiving software on RTFM, there is the effect that you will have on
your readership and your local Mail Administrator.
When you use a non-replyable address you make the reader do more work to
be able to communicate with you. Some won't bother trying a second time
after their reply to you bounces. Some won't take the time to jump through
the hoops.
Most mail admins review messages that bounce on their system so to assure
all local problems are dealt with efficiently. Your local Mail administrator
will surely get tired of reviewing bounces for your invalid mail address.
In trying to solve your problem you have created a problem for them as well.
And what will they be reviewing in most cases ? Bounces which will be innocent
users trying to send you a note.
So what have we accomplished here by this attempt at concealment ? You have
caused your readers more work and potential bad feeling towards you, caused
potential problems between you and your Mail administrator and all because
you can't hit the "Delete" Key in you mail reader package...
Like it or not you make yourself more a public figure and spam target by
periodically posting to Usenet. If you want the problem to go away and
not cause additional problems around you, don't post. There are solutions
being developed but nothing is here (or will be for the next year or so).
# This time the question about modified addresses could open
# up the Pandora's box again.
Only if you let it. This is not a fix. It causes more problems than the
initial annoyance. Why would you want to put your problem onto others ????
Say no to spam: Just hit the delete key.
-- Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502 The Landfield Group FAX: 1-817-545-7650 Email: kent@landfield.com http://www.landfield.com/ Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to kent@uunet.uu.net.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved