Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:47:55 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199801300347.TAA01956@adit.ap.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: kifox AT hotmail DOT com (kifox), djgpp AT delorie DOT com
From: Nate Eldredge <eldredge AT ap DOT net>
Subject: Re: TC++ syntax?
Precedence: bulk

At 08:29  1/29/1998 GMT, kifox wrote:
>Guys, you're getting worked up for no reason. Anti-spam/fake email-address 
>are here to stay. Moaning about the technical issues aren't going to do you 
>a bit of good,because most of the people who use these addresses don't 
>really care about them. They're not getting spam in their mailboxes for the 
>most part and that's all that really matters to them. 
That's fine. My point here is that faking one's email address and getting
help on this newsgroup are mutually exclusive goals. If somebody wants help
with something, and that's the subject of most of the postings here, it is
counterproductive to make things difficult for those who would help. This is
what I try to point out when I do reply to anti-spammed messages.
If somebody wants to be rude and fake their address, that's their
prerogative. It is also *my* prerogative, and that of other repliers, to
ignore such postings as I would any other spam. It so happens that I
currently have the patience to reply to those people anyway, but in the
future I may get sick of it and add them to my killfile. That will hurt only
them. This is the purpose of the warnings with which I and others "waste our
time". If someone wishes to have further questions here answered, it
behooves them to make things easy for answerers.

>Just relax and learn to live with it. Nothing going to change for the most 
>part.
That's one option, sure. The other is to refuse to help people who use
anti-spam schemes. This would hurt DJGPP's reputation for support, but if it
makes life easier for me, I must consider it.

Nate Eldredge
eldredge AT ap DOT net