Re: #1093

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <87d55bhmpc.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>I don't think "if you run a Netnews server, you have to be spammable" is
>really going to fly in the real world.  It works so wonderfully well for
>e-mail, after all.

Except that "news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is not likely to be visibly
plastered all over Usenet and the Web, ready to be scraped by spammers (as
"abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" might well be).

So if a spammer sends to news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx he must have read RFC
2142, and then looked at all the domains he found in Path headers and in
Injection-Info and so tried putting "news@" in front of them. And that
situation already exists today (RFC 2142 is already out there), but I have
not heard that excessive amounts of spam are currently hitting news@
addresses (indeed, I would expect them to be rather quiet spamwise
compared to more visible addresses, and I don't see how putting "news@"
into USEPRO would change that).

Which is just to point out a flaw in your counter-argument, and not to say
that I necessarily support Frank's attempts to reopen this issue.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5