I know. Actually you can check out my Usenet postings. I am sorry that
I used X-No-Archive: Yes option so you cannot do this in Deja News, but
it should be easy to check my postings in "soc.culture.taiwan".
I never used the messed up E-mail address method trying to bypass spam
address diggers. At least for now my mailfilter is good enough for me.
> 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.
I understand the problems for readers, but I don't agree that a good program
can dig out E-mail addresses from above. The point is that there is NO
universal way to fool the programs, so the programs will be very tough
to write.
> 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.
The point is that they can directly grep through Reply-To: instead of From:.
> (discussions about whether this is really useful deleted)
> # 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.
For us FAQ maintainers, I guess readership and local system administration
is a less serious problem. Messing up and confusing the archiving software
had a more serious implication.
> (discussions not directly relevant to FAQ maintainence deleted)
> # 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.
I am doing this right now.
I am sorry that I cannot expose the "Pandora's Box" I talk about here since
it was reported that some rogue people are also subscribing to this mailing
list.
Tung-chiang Yang tcyang@netcom.com
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved