Layer at bottom

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

It does not matter if the domain already exists. As I have already pointed
out, all *addresses* provided have to be existing,

I think life has moved on, and left that rule behind. Or rather, spam
is now a larger problem than address munging, and I'd rather address
the bigger problem first than follow protocols from back when spam
was not a problem.

I wouldn't mind posting on Usenet with no e-mail contant address
(there are probably even people out there who doesn't even have an
e-mail address). If the format does not allow it, I'll also accept
using an invalid address. I don't, but that's because the address
I use is already spammed flat, so it won't make any difference.

I once made the mistake of posting using Google Groups, and it
automagically used one of my GMail accounts. I cancelled the message
immediately, but the damage was done. That account now gets spam
addressed directly to it. If prior experience is a guide, the spam
will increase to the point where I have to abandon that address too.

It is, by now, common usage to have invalid e-mail addresses in
Usenet postings, munged or just plain wrong. It is what new users
are adviced to do by their ISP's security guides. And, in this
day and age, it's probably even the smart thing to do. Trying to
fight that, singlehandedly, is not going to do much good, even
if done diplomatically (otherwise it's doomed to do nothing but
incise people).

and the domain(s) used has/have to be yours or you need explicit
permission from the owner to use it.

Absolutely. If munging an addresss, don't fiddle with the domain name.
If writing an invalid address, make it invalid, not just not yours.

This is not a (paid) support forum, but a public discussion group!
Go away.

Politeness is free, and makes advice go over so much better
Remember, when you try to communicate, what you say is no more
important than how it is received, and making people defensive
is a sure way to make them not be receptive.

/L

 

[Christopher J. Hahn]

You changed it to something less annoying for the owner of the domain,
but same annoying to readers and still standards-violating:

I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up on
USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?

 

[Christopher J. Hahn]

I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up on
USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?

Well, that's too much like a red herring. Those two aren't standards,
so I shouldn't suggest them as such.

I was wondering which standard it violates, not which non-standard.

Sorry for that.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It does not matter if the domain already exists. As I have
already pointed out, all *addresses* provided have to be existing,

I think life has moved on, and left that rule behind. Or rather, spam
is now a larger problem than address munging, and I'd rather address
the bigger problem first than follow protocols from back when spam
was not a problem.

I wouldn't mind posting on Usenet with no e-mail contant address
(there are probably even people out there who doesn't even have an
e-mail address). [...]

That is antisocial behavior, too -- setting one's own good above the
good of the others --, yet it hits different and probably more people.
Not using mail addresses forces flame wars and other off-topic
discussions -- and I don't mean primarily discussions about nonexistant
or abusive From/Reply addresses -- on the newsgroups as people cannot
(more calmly) clear up their differences and misunderstandings in
private; not astonishingly, this is quite visible in this newsgroup.
It also hinders or prevents that people get know each other better which
can lead to nice meetings/parties of regulars in RL and stuff like that
(yes, that happens in de.ALL where address "munging" is deprecated by
many [most?] regulars). Usenet is and has been both public newsgroup
and private e-mail, to hinder or prevent one part is/can be considered
harmful to all participants. People who don't have an e-mail address
should not (and, according to the standard which made this communication
medium possible in the first place and allows to keep it running, MUST
NOT) participate *actively* in Usenet (readers are always welcome); but
then, anyone who is attracted by Usenet most certainly has one or more
e-mail addresses.

Absolutely. If munging an addresss, don't fiddle with the domain
name. If writing an invalid address, make it invalid, not just not
yours.

Never ever "mung an address". A string that does not refer to a
mailbox, which at least has to *receive* mail (social behavior would
require at least one given mailbox to be checked for mails by the
owner), is not an e-mail address at all. Instead, learn to manage
your mailboxes (using a strictly filtered, yet not unread, spammer
trap in From and a regularly checked mailbox in ReplyTo helps) and
fight spammers using "legal" ways.

Ref. <and
<for details.


PointedEars, F'up2 poster (BTW: a request provided by a standard
message header for replies to be sent as e-mail only), as this is
*off-topic* (and I don't know an appropriate newsgroup; if you
know such one, feel free to crosspost with Followup-To that group
instead)

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I hate to butt in where I really don't belong-- I'm still reading up
on USENET and NNTP-related standards-- but which standard does this
violate?

i.e. RFC850 or RFC1036 or something like that?

<
This thread just became recursive and the Usenet became fractal.
Oh my ;-)


PointedEars

 

[Christopher J. Hahn]

<
This thread just became recursive and the Usenet became fractal.
Oh my ;-)


PointedEars

Hah, sorry. I didn't see that one.
But RFC1036 says "... This memo is
disributed as an RFC to make this information easily accessible to
the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard."

I get the feeling there's something I'm missing here.

 

[Ivan Marsh]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahh, I should have noticed this earlier.

[...]
Don't tell me what I don't understand

Yet I have to as you don't appear to notice anything anymore.

Wow, you are an arrogant little moron aren't you?

Sweet.

Yes, not nice to be called something you aren't is it? Sort of like
calling spammers terrorists. Sort of belittles the people blown to bits by
terrorists.

There, now the conversation can end [...]

Yes, indeed.

Apparently not.

| X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)

[x] done

Ha! That's funny.

PointedEars (arrogant, wanna'be vulcan, virgin, moron)

You can put me in your killfile now.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Sun, 17 Jul
2005 07:44:59, seen in Thomas 'PointedEars'

This is not a (paid) support forum, but a public discussion group!
Go away.

This is a public discussion group, as you say.

As you do not like the way in which the public chooses to use it, it is
you who should go away. You are a despicable example of the Teutonic
bully-boy.

 

[Brian]

you can use CSS:
position: fixed;

Hi BMGZ, thanks for your suggestion, I have finally got
it working

Regards

Brian