Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/01/26/05:45:32
Eli Zaretskii wrote in message ...
>
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:
>
>> Imagine that some people started going around throwing paint balls at
>> everyone they passed on the streets. This would be obnoxious and
>> antisocial, and I think you would probably become very angry about it.
>> You could avoid the problem by just staying indoors all the time, but I
>> find it hard to imagine that anyone would seriously consider that as a
>> good solution to the problem!
>
>If using anti-spammed addresses would be analogous to staying indoors, it
>would be not as bad as it is now. But what it really does is to cause
>replies to those addresses to bounce back to people like me who cannot
>afford reading all the headers to detect such fake addresses and delete
>them before sending. Bouncing messages are annoying, waste bandwidth, and
>some people have even to pay for them if their ISP charges them by mail
>volume.
>
>So whoever uses the fake address is actually punishing those who want to
>help them; it is therefore more like catching those paint balls and
>throwing them at somebody who is holding a friendly conversation with you.
>This is IMHO just plain rude.
And I also get tired of looking at sig lines to find out how to send email
to
someone with an anti-spammed address. Shawn and Eli are correct: fake
addresses
compound the problem. Sticking with the analogy, the real solution is to go
after the people hurling the paint balls.
Kurt
- Raw text -