[Wine] Wine

[L. Rahyen]

fOn Thursday March 20 2008 06:36:17 Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 March 2008 10:57:54 pm L. Rahyen wrote:
> > On Thursday March 20 2008 04:34:09 Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 07:21:42 pm jnewman wrote:
> > > > Zachary Goldberg wrote:
> > > > > Are these being caused by people changing the subject mid-thread on
> > > > > the forum?  Can we disable that ability to prevent thread jumps?
> > > >
> > > > No, they are being caused by posts from outside the forum (ala the
> > > > list). Not sure what can be done about that, other than to ask people
> > > > to try to keep that to a minimum.
> > >
> > > While we're at it, for the benefit of list users, could we get the
> > > forum to put a real address in the From: instead of a nonfunctional
> > > boilerplate?
> >
> > 	No, e-mail address shouldn't be revealed to the public (and spam
> > robots). And if user wants his/her contacts published in the forum he/she
> > can register there and fill in corresponding fields and then continue to
> > write to mailing list (instead of forum). If user don't want his/her
> > e-mail to be revealed in the forum (or somewhere else) then this
> > shouldn't happened. Of course it is possible to modify e-mail somehow to
> > prevent spam robots from collecting the address so easily but protected
> > e-mail and true e-mail are different things (as I said above, true e-mail
> > address never should be revealed to the public).
>
> Address munging is considered harmful.  It's the postmaster's
> responsibility not to accept spam in the first place.
> http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

	I disagree with this article. I lost enough mail addresses in the past when 
tried to use them "as is" without paying attention on how well they munged in 
the archives or public web-pages; when I started to use my new address only in 
limited number of "trusted" public places (and always check how well it is 
munged in these "trusted" public places) the problem was "magically" solved.
	To me it seems that author of that article simply don't imagine what does it 
mean to receive dozens/hundreds of spam messages per day. And there is no 
alternative solution(s) of any kind in the article, really. Author just 
dislikes something (address munging), blame spammers and some users and 
that's all.