🚀 go-pugleaf

I think it's safe to say that Mr. Goodfellow has been active in the
network long enough to know about Berkeley's "%" hack.  How long have
*you* been around that you aren't aware of how long Mr. Goodfellow's
been around?  At any rate, he isn't concerned about mail he receives.
He's concerned about mail his users receive, even the ones that have
been around many years but don't happen to read lists like this.  In
fact, I think it's insulting to try to trivialize this problem to a
claim that "any smart person should know how to do it.  Don't you?"

As to the legal aspects, you obviously are failing completely on that
score.  You've already allowed a piece of mail to go out from an
unauthorized user.  Now you claim that, since that user is
unauthorized, an authorized user should not be allowed to reply?  Get
your head out of your.  If you've taken steps to prevent access
without a name, it shouldn't matter whether or not I have a name.  If
you haven't taken such steps, then it doesn't matter whether or not I
have a name, since I can use a number.  But to try to claim that mail
sent out should be allowed to have illegal names because the sites
are illegal shows some sort of brain damage.

I'd say that schedule is obsolete.  That doesn't mean the project's
been dropped, it just means it's behind schedule.  If I were you, I'd
be more concerned with providing good service than with standing on a
soap box.