On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 20:38 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > I still don't get what the *real* issue is.... Mostly from someone sticking their oar in, telling me to do something completely unnecessary, not paying enough attention in the first place to realise it was unnecessary, continuing to argue the point, and having the bad manners not to respect the common courtesy of not revealing information that was deliberately withheld. Hell, there's even an RFC about that sort of thing for IRC, and other systems. That when someone goes on-line using some name/ID, you refer to them using that name, not revealing information to others that they kept to themselves. > Spammers don't go through hoops to get email addresses to spam to. I know, that's why I post from this address, and don't bother trying to obscure headers. Addresses in them aren't going to help spammers, they don't lead to mailboxes. They could even have been faked, I could have used someone else's domain name. I'm presuming that the lack of conversations in that direction means that people have made a brief check, first. > If you really want to be "anonymous" then you really need to do a > better job of it...and there is no point in complaining that someone > named you when the veil you've placed around yourself is as > transparent as it is. I take enough steps to ward off the spam, or stop receiving mail from those not able to figure out how to do so on their own. I expressed my displeasure at the actions of some others too stupid to think about what they're doing, first. I could work out the home phone numbers and street addresses of some people on this list, and post them here, if I were similarly rude. But to actually do so would be a grossly inappropriate thing to do, and I know that without people having to write instructions to that effect. -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
