🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <rone.MonJul27151110PDT1998.10139@ennui.org>,
rone+usenet@ennui.org (karmic acid) wrote:


> The point of having addresses in news was to allow email replies.  By
> munging, you are breaking this feature.  

I think this response is way out of proportion to what's actually
happening. I am only making it marginally more difficult, not in any way
"breaking" it.

> This should be considered Wrong Behavior.  

Hmm. I keep hearing this kind of thing, and it kind of scares me. Are you
the same people that opposed the Communications Decency Act and other
efforts to control internet usage? You have a funny way of dictating how
others shall behave when it suits you...

> Once your address gets on a spammer's list, munging
> your address in your posts to Usenet ain't going to make it better;
> it's like putting a bandage on a festering wound.

Very true, which is why I munged my address before posting anything at all. 

Don't get me wrong, filters can be an equally effective solution with a
little effort to set up and maintain. Getting spams and deleting them
isn't really that much of a nuisance. And some people really like to get
personal email from people who read their usenet posts, so it makes sense
for them to avoid anything which would interfere with that. 

I'm not saying munging is the best or only way to do things, just that it
does exactly what I want it to, and does it perfectly. I feel a bit odd
that you good folks are taking such strenuous efforts to convince me that
there's something wrong with me for having those particular views, or that
it doesn't actually work, when I know that it does, or that your points
(all of which are valid, and all of which I considered before doing this)
should be more important to me than my own priorities.

....................................................
MATTHEW VAUGHAN
matthewv at best dot com (damn spammers...)
http://www.best.com/~matthewv/
....................................................