From: Erland Sommarskog (sommar@algonet.se)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2001 - 16:18:00 CST
Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) writes:
> Yes, that seems to be an improvement (though no need to mention the
> "previous sentence" explicitly).
I must have been read too much law text recently.
> Whether or not a valid address can subsequently be extracted from
> such an address falls outside the scope of this standard (though
> it would be perverse to make the disguise too easily penetrable).
"Perverse"????
Please change that some more neutral language.
And I still don't like "for personal reasons"...
-- Erland Sommarskog, Stockholm, sommar@algonet.se