Message from discussion antispam addresses again
From: "Robin S. Socha" <rso...@kens.com>
Subject: Re: antispam addresses again
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Never Take Me Alive
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) XEmacs/21.2 (Shinjuku)
* Alan <Mackenzie<n...@all.de>> writes:
> Sven Guckes <guc...@math.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> * Alan Mackenzie <n...@all.de>:
> CALM DOWN, SVEN! I somehow get the impression that you've had this argument
> on Usenet several times before, and not won it. You can't win it, anymore
> than you can expect to persuade anybody that vi is a better editor than
> emacs or argue them into reversing their stance on abortion.
Emacs rules and killing is cool. Dude.
>> "Here's my number. Yes, it's a 15digit number. It's the product of two
>> 7digit primes, you know. Just factorize it and one of the factors has
>> the digits of my phone number. Try all permutations. Easy." What a
>> grand idea. Sheesh!
> Now, I think you're exaggerating just a _little_ bit here. Robin de Socha
> managed to untangle my email address without any trouble, and that wasn't
> even to send me email.
No. It was to post with it in <news:alt.sex.sheep.baaa.baaa.baaa.moo>
asking for an escort. Hope you like them young and shaven.
> Tell me something. I know you object to scrambled addresses on principle,
> but do you object particularly to mine? If so, feel free to tell me exactly
> what you don't like about it. Is it that "n...@all.de" doesn't contain the
> word "spam", or that the "ayeseee...." bit is troublesome?
Dude, there is *one* thing you just don't get... it's the "USENET isn't
fucking post only". Ever gauged a full feed? "Full" as in "everything"? Can
you imagine that there aren't many unanswered questions left? It's "man,
info, HOWTO, deja.com" and then, and only then, "USENET".
> Also, nobody is forcing you to email a news poster. It's your choice.
It's the only chance for USENET to survive. Ever tried reading comp.os.linux?
Without Gnus <http://www.gnus.org/>, it's practically impossible.
>> No - I was only suggesting a simple and (almost) free workaround.
> But the point is, it's less simple than scrambling an email address, so
> it's not going to be totally popular, regardless of how intrinsically
> right it may be. People are _lazy_.
No. Lusers are dead meat. People like Sven, Ken, Felix et al put the *kill*
> Incidentally, the word "allow" in English needs a direct object.
Incidentally, you need a luser readjustment, fuckstain.
> I think, though, that we would both agree that the real solution to the
> spam problem lies in legislation to outlaw the practice. Until such
> legislation is in force in the bulk of the Internet world we'll simply
> have to carry on disagreeing on the best way of coping with it.
One law for them and another law for us. You'd be surprised how quickly
damage is done if your mailserver sucks. Are you still looking for trouble,
Robin S. Socha <http://socha.net/>