Re: spam was Re: default

>From: Tom <rdorgan@worldnet.att.net> >Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 08:41:27 -0600 >X-Informix-List-Id: <news.40313> > >Billy Wheeler wrote: >> My personal feeling is that it's a pain in the ass to respond to >> someone asking for advice who then makes it difficult to respond to >> them. If someone is asking for help it's "rude" to make it difficult >> for people to help you. And yes, I get truckloads of spam as well. >> >> $0.02 >My personal feeling is that I dont necessarily need an email followup to >a newsgroup posting so that my return address is unimportant. People who >ask for email followups only often strike me as greedy swine. With this news group at least, I hardly ever read it with a news reader. The mailing list gateway run so ably by Walt Hultgren (thanks, Walt!) sends me the news by email. Consequently, I reply to messages by email. If the poster's address is anti-spammed, then I get a bounced email. That's more irritating than spam, so if I spot that the address is incorrect (typically because it has a weird informix.com domain address by the time it's got through our internal mail system, or occasionally because it has an rmy.emory.edu domain), I don't even bother to answer, even when there's something I would otherwise say. If someone asks for a reply by email, I send it to them, but I also post it to the news group (via email) -- unless there's a reason why I think I should take my answer offline immediately. But that's how I reply to any posting anyway. It irritates me intensely when someone's emailer doesn't manage to put the correct return address in place (though that it is often not their fault). It's even worse when the misdirection is deliberate. I decline to respond to messages where the return address is anti-spammed. Yours, Jonathan Leffler (johnl@informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h> PS: I decline to respond to messages with anti-spam in the return path.