google groups2 beta version

Tony Raven said:

Either obfuscate your e-mail address - look at other posters here for
examples or use a throw away address that you do not use for normal
mail. Hotmail is a popular choice. Either don't bother to read mail at
the throw away address or use it until spam becomes too great and then
throw it away and use another.

No, don't look at other people for examples, because half of them do it
uselesslessly, and most of the other half do it worse than uselessly,
selfishly making the spam problem worse than it was before, and making
it worse for other people.

There's no point in creating an address which will cause a bounce.
What's the good of that? We want less Internet traffic, not more. So if
fakename at yourdomain produces a bounce, it's contributing to the
problem. What's more, if fakename at yourdomain produces a bounce, but
realname at yourdomain doesn't, then you may as well have advertised
your address anyway, because the spammers will pick up on the fact.

Then there are the people who use soemone else's username for their
supposedly antispam addresses. That's nice, isn't it?

And things get more worse when it comes to domain name disgusing. How
many idiots have you seen out there with antispam addresses like noone
at noone dot tld, or not at home dot tld. Tough [censored] on the poor guy who
spent good money on buying noone.com, or nowhere.com, or home.com, or
any of those other perfectly good domain names that a thousand careless
people have turned into great big spam targets, all in the name of
protecting themselves

There's someone in this thread who's antispam address has hijacked the
domain mung.com. OK, its unlikely to garner spam for any individual
mailbox in this instance, but spam will reach that domain, and will go
through their servers, thus contributing to the spam problem, not
lessening it.

There's a very good reason why responsible Usenet providers (like
news.individual.net) want people to use their own real addresses, and
prohibit the selfish (and possibly criminal) use of other people's.

I can see why people might not want to publicise their own email
addresses in news, though I don't agree with it and I don't think they
should try to cloak their real addresses. But there is no excuse
whatsoever for abusing someone *else's* username, domain or address in
the attempt to stop you from getting spam.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

On 30/8/04 11:18 am, in article
[email hidden], "D.M.

Procida said:

I can see why people might not want to publicise their own email
addresses in news, though I don't agree with it and I don't think they
should try to cloak their real addresses. But there is no excuse
whatsoever for abusing someone *else's* username, domain or address in
the attempt to stop you from getting spam.

I find [email hidden] or someone@localhost works remarkably well for me
and only hijacks the spammers own machine.

...d

D.M. Procida said:

Tony Raven said:

Either obfuscate your e-mail address - look at other posters here for
examples or use a throw away address that you do not use for normal
mail. Hotmail is a popular choice. Either don't bother to read mail at
the throw away address or use it until spam becomes too great and then
throw it away and use another.

No, don't look at other people for examples, because half of them do it
uselesslessly, and most of the other half do it worse than uselessly,
selfishly making the spam problem worse than it was before, and making
it worse for other people.

There's no point in creating an address which will cause a bounce.
What's the good of that? We want less Internet traffic, not more. So if
fakename at yourdomain produces a bounce, it's contributing to the
problem. What's more, if fakename at yourdomain produces a bounce, but
realname at yourdomain doesn't, then you may as well have advertised
your address anyway, because the spammers will pick up on the fact.

Then there are the people who use soemone else's username for their
supposedly antispam addresses. That's nice, isn't it?

And things get more worse when it comes to domain name disgusing. How
many idiots have you seen out there with antispam addresses like noone
at noone dot tld, or not at home dot tld. Tough [censored] on the poor guy who
spent good money on buying noone.com, or nowhere.com, or home.com, or
any of those other perfectly good domain names that a thousand careless
people have turned into great big spam targets, all in the name of
protecting themselves

There's someone in this thread who's antispam address has hijacked the
domain mung.com. OK, its unlikely to garner spam for any individual
mailbox in this instance, but spam will reach that domain, and will go
through their servers, thus contributing to the spam problem, not
lessening it.

There's a very good reason why responsible Usenet providers (like
news.individual.net) want people to use their own real addresses, and
prohibit the selfish (and possibly criminal) use of other people's.

I can see why people might not want to publicise their own email
addresses in news, though I don't agree with it and I don't think they
should try to cloak their real addresses. But there is no excuse
whatsoever for abusing someone *else's* username, domain or address in
the attempt to stop you from getting spam.

Daniele

Well consider me told off. If you look you will see that I have taken
Mung.com away. I apologise for being useless and selfish and exit this
thread as of now.

Stan Cox

quote='D.M. Procida'Tony Raven said:

Either obfuscate your e-mail address - look at other posters here for
examples or use a throw away address that you do not use for normal
mail. Hotmail is a popular choice. Either don't bother to read mail at
the throw away address or use it until spam becomes too great and then
throw it away and use another.

No, don't look at other people for examples, because half of them do it
uselesslessly, and most of the other half do it worse than uselessly,
selfishly making the spam problem worse than it was before, and making
it worse for other people.

There's no point in creating an address which will cause a bounce.
What's the good of that? We want less Internet traffic, not more. So if
fakename at yourdomain produces a bounce, it's contributing to the
problem. What's more, if fakename at yourdomain produces a bounce, but
realname at yourdomain doesn't, then you may as well have advertised
your address anyway, because the spammers will pick up on the fact.

Then there are the people who use soemone else's username for their
supposedly antispam addresses. That's nice, isn't it?

And things get more worse when it comes to domain name disgusing. How
many idiots have you seen out there with antispam addresses like noone
at noone dot tld, or not at home dot tld. Tough [censored] on the poor guy who
spent good money on buying noone.com, or nowhere.com, or home.com, or
any of those other perfectly good domain names that a thousand careless
people have turned into great big spam targets, all in the name of
protecting themselves

There's someone in this thread who's antispam address has hijacked the
domain mung.com. OK, its unlikely to garner spam for any individual
mailbox in this instance, but spam will reach that domain, and will go
through their servers, thus contributing to the spam problem, not
lessening it.

There's a very good reason why responsible Usenet providers (like
news.individual.net) want people to use their own real addresses, and
prohibit the selfish (and possibly criminal) use of other people's.

I can see why people might not want to publicise their own email
addresses in news, though I don't agree with it and I don't think they
should try to cloak their real addresses. But there is no excuse
whatsoever for abusing someone *else's* username, domain or address in
the attempt to stop you from getting spam.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140[/QUOTE]
But surely it will only bounce if someone tries to mail the obviously spamproof address?
or do the spam robots trawl newsgroups and e-mail every address on the list?

D.M. Procida wrote:

<snip points well made>

Quoted message said:

There's a very good reason why responsible Usenet providers (like
news.individual.net) want people to use their own real addresses, and
prohibit the selfish (and possibly criminal) use of other people's.

As I read n.i.n policy they want an address that does not bounce rather
than necessarily an active address

Quoted message said:

But there is no excuse
whatsoever for abusing someone *else's* username, domain or address in
the attempt to stop you from getting spam.

Agreed. In my case with my own domain its easy to sink it at the
server. For others using a disposable address such as hotmail is
probably the best answer. I'm not sure how intelligent the harvest bots
are and whether they ignore .invalid addresses as Keith suggested or
simply try the limited replacement options for .invalid

Tony

D.M. Procida said:

There's someone in this thread who's antispam address has hijacked the
domain mung.com. OK, its unlikely to garner spam for any individual
mailbox in this instance, but spam will reach that domain, and will go
through their servers, thus contributing to the spam problem, not
lessening it.

To be fair, ntworld.mung.com doesn't resolve and it doesn't have an MX
record, so no mail would be delivered to it. It was just bad manners,
that's all.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free
people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough."
-- FDR

MartinMM said:

How do I know I won't get spammed?

The only communication I have had from them since registering a couple
of weeks ago is my username and password.

d.

Keith Willoughby said:

You'd be better off using your email address but with a .INVALID at the
end. The top-level domain .invalid is guaranteed not to exist, ever.

How is that any less of a violation of the individual.net terms?

d.

davek said:

Keith Willoughby said:

You'd be better off using your email address but with a .INVALID at the
end. The top-level domain .invalid is guaranteed not to exist, ever.

How is that any less of a violation of the individual.net terms?

The person I was replying to doesn't use individual.net

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
But on the other side, It didn't say nothing.
That side was made for you and me.

Keith Willoughby said:

The person I was replying to doesn't use individual.net

Sorry, I wrongly interpreted your comments as criticising Stan for
contravening individual.net's AUP.

But please don't take my comments as a criticism of you. I'm only asking
to clarify the position for my own benefit: if he had been using
individual.net he would be breaking their terms by doing what you
suggest, right?

Btw, I've taken Daniele's comments on board and now have a valid email
address in my profile. Don't anyone bother using it though, because I
won't bother checking it.

d.

davek said:

Keith Willoughby said:

You'd be better off using your email address but with a .INVALID at the
end. The top-level domain .invalid is guaranteed not to exist, ever.

How is that any less of a violation of the individual.net terms?

Because they specifically recommend this approach on their website (see
the FAQ). Yes I realise this is inconsistent wrt their terms written
elsewhere.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

James Annan said:

Because they specifically recommend this approach on their website (see
the FAQ).

I see. Thanks for pointing that out - no need for Keith to answer that
question now.

Yes I realise this is inconsistent wrt their terms written

Quoted message said:

elsewhere.

I'm /very/ confused.

d.

davek said:

Keith Willoughby said:

The person I was replying to doesn't use individual.net

Sorry, I wrongly interpreted your comments as criticising Stan for
contravening individual.net's AUP.

I wasn't really criticising anyone. Just trying to be helpful.

Quoted message said:

But please don't take my comments as a criticism of you.

That's ok, wasn't taken that way at all. I should have been more clear
in the first place.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"She rubs the Sunlight soap around by Claddagh
Just to watch the suds flow down by Galway Bay"

davek said:

Keith Willoughby said:

You'd be better off using your email address but with a .INVALID at the
end. The top-level domain .invalid is guaranteed not to exist, ever.

How is that any less of a violation of the individual.net terms?

Well they say: " The e-mail addresses given in "From:", "Reply-To:", and
"Sender:" should be your own and should be valid (= should not bounce
because of invalidity). Using addresses and name space of other people
without their permission is prohibited. "

Anything with .invalid will not bounce and is therefore valid. Whether
its your own is a philosophical debate.

Tony

MartinMM said:

But surely it will only bounce if someone tries to mail the
obviouslyspamproof address? or do the spam robots trawl newsgroups and
e-mail every address on thelist?

Good grief, what on earth are you using as a newsreader?

Anyway, the answer to your question: 1) causing bounces is bad because
it's worthless Internet traffic, and: 2) spammers use bounces to
determine real addresses, and: 3) spammers don't even need to trawl for
addresses anyway, they guess them or use brute force attempts to find
them, and the bounces are their no. 1 tool in finding out which are the
real ones.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

[email hidden] (D.M. Procida) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

MartinMM said:

But surely it will only bounce if someone tries to mail the
obviouslyspamproof address? or do the spam robots trawl newsgroups and
e-mail every address on thelist?

Good grief, what on earth are you using as a newsreader?

I haven't got one, waiting for my NIN password; have to say GG2 is a
vast improvement over GG, just no good for posting to.