From: Greg Berigan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 06 1997 - 12:10:41 CDT
Brad Templeton <email@example.com> wrote:
> Well, the two things wrong with "nobody" and <> are:
> a) People can't vary them.
People shouldn't need to vary them.
> I have noticed the anti-harvesters like to
> do things like firstname.lastname@example.org and put in english instructions to
> say, "Please remove the nospam to reply to me" I wish people wouldn't
> do that but we're not here to stop them, just to define how they do it.
I disagrere. We _should_ be here to stop them, not justify their actions.
> (Of course they will do it less and less as more systems come about that
> just killfile the invalid addresses.
And then they'll go back to using non-flagged invalid addresses. They'll
do what they have to to get their articles to propogate, by hook or by
crook. Internet technology isn't the only thing that routes around
"damage". People do it too.
> b) They both may get rejected by current software. We need to pick
> something that won't break legacy implementations where possible.
Current software will work with "nobody". New software will work better.