On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:51:33 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:47:02PM -0500, Alan Shutko wrote: > > I think eskimo.com is rewriting that localhost into eskimo.com. So > > it isn't actually getting any extra load from Alan Connor... it's > > just slightly damaging the mail. (Which doesn't strike me as a > > large bug, since he shouldn't be posting with that address, anyway. > > Why people think that a fake From: but a valid Reply-To: is any use > > is beyond me.) > > It's arguably a useful (if rude) tactic in news, since, I hypothesize, > it's much faster for spammers to harvest From: addresses because > they're usually in the overview file while Reply-To: is not. That > makes it a matter of downloading an index versus downloading every > article. > > That argument doesn't apply to e-mail, though. Munging has always traditionally been okay in news. Typically, one would munge his or her email address as [EMAIL PROTECTED], in a form which makes it stand-out as being munged slightly easier. On the USENET, too, correspondence is always done in the newsgroup. Often times people carbon copy messages in mailing lists, especially when a person does not wish to subscribe to the mailing list. In news, carbon copying messages and requesting it is generally considered unethical, so munging is not so frowned upon. -- Scott Christopher Linnenbringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.eskimo.com/~sl/info.txt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
