Re: RegExp: Replacing string with array variable index

Jon Gómez wrote:
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Jon Gómez wrote:
You know, this made me finally just use a real email address instead
of jgomez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Good for you that you did. (Reason includes, but is not limited to, my
killfile rule not applying then, see below.)

If I may make fun of myself:

But I was thinking of a plan To dye one's whiskers green, And always use
so large a fan That it could not be seen. -- Lewis Carroll

:)

[...]
In using an invalid email address, my intention at the time was to
express that I could not or chose not to provide an email for personal
communication. Thereafter, you could do what you wanted with the
information, including killfile me.

I can still do that :)

As a means of communicating, it was apparently a good choice.

Without being presumptuous, I'd say that depends on whether you place
quantity over quality.

I respect other's right to chose how to respond to the situation:
Otherwise, why else would I use an obviously invalid email?

There is actually no "invalid e-mail (address)". Either it is an address
(to specify a mailbox) or it is not.

As for the spam problem that comes with following protocol and
Netiquette, I have said it a hundred times before, too, and I am
willing to repeat it every time someone asks because the situation
really has *not* changed:

Spam is a curious kind of creature living out in the waters of the
Internet.

*g*

Actually, when I was first studying Internet protocols, I really enjoyed
trying to trace and work out the headers in spam.

Add me.

"Munging" "addresses" is harmful; it is actually *helping* spammers!
Because, if no one competent listens and acts accordingly, spammers can
*keep on spamming undisturbed* because they are *not caught*, IP
address ranges are *not blacklisted*, open relays are *not closed*, and
such highly abusive users are *not banned* from the Net by their admins
(there are working abuse desks, really).

I doubt people typically see it as just two alternatives of munging or
reporting. So insofar as munging introduces inconvenience (like my using
invalid addresses),

See above.

that is harmful, but that harm doesn't necessarily
stack with the loss of benefit from not reporting.

I don't think you quite got my meaning right.

I myself have notified people when I can tell that their machine has been
hacked into and used to distribute spam.

Good man. But that is not merely some spam, of course, but something much
more harmful.

If we stick our heads in the sand like this, if we only continue this
arms race crawler vs. filter, it stands to reason that e-mail will one
day cease to be a useful communications medium -- and the spammers
would have won!

Then a new way of communicating will be invented, right? Maybe something
better. Here's my chance at optimism.

It would certainly be something very *different*, something not compatible
with Usenet as it is for sure. So your optimism hinges on the hope for a
Usenet3 to replace Usenet. Look what became of Usenet2, and you might want
to reconsider. In any case, ISTM the "better" with regard to unsolicited
messages hinges on the proof that P = NP.

I will not let that happen, and I will not do anything to support it.
Therefore, I do what I can do: Mungers are killfiled where they stand
(after an on-group hint as to their wrongdoing if the rest of their
posting seems worthwhile to reply to). While I will keep on
complaining to abuse desks and contributing to blacklists that actually
*prevent* spamming in the first place. As for myself, I have working
filters to *recognize* new spammers, to separate the jewels from the
junk; such means are neither expensive to get nor are they hard to set
up these days.

Would you like to further explain why you use a killfile?

Not really here, no, because it is off-topic. My reasons for using a
killfile (which is really a kind of scorefile) are not different from
the reasons of the many other people who are using such means.

I can understand it as a form of protest, as an attempt to filter out
those you feel hurt newsgroups,

Oh no, it is much more simple. Does "sand and nuggets" ring a bell?

and perhaps even as a way of artificially modifying your interaction with
newsgroups to conform to your desire to have no munging.

I don't follow.

I can see, therefore, how it cognitively and personally can help you, but
I'm missing how it helps anyone else or modifies others' behavior.

Those who don't follow protocol and Netiquette are ignored eventually; if
they have a problem and ask for help about it, I will not see it and so they
don't get my direct advice. Since I'm reading almost every posting that
does not get filtered out or is automatically marked as read, it is possible
to determine which postings (and posters) I consider worthwhile (if I not
state the opposite explicitly). And I am not the only one.

<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

I read it. I didn't get much out of it, but I forced myself to read it.
The spam/terrorism analogy doesn't appeal to me.

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve
neither and will lose both. -- Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased)


F'up2 poster (I'd rather continue this off-group if necessary, but if you
know a Usenet newsgroup where it is on-topic, feel free to crosspost and set
F'up2 there instead.)

PointedEars
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CROSS-POSTING, OR MULTI-POSTING, OR NEITHER?
    ... Many, however, seem to have a fear of that, and for some reason or other, insist on using email addresses that are somehow shrouded in mystery. ... The junk unsolicited emails and Spam that are generated by just one Usenet posting are not worth it when one simply want to make a comment, and/or participate in a Usenet discussion, with absolutely zero requirement of personal email exchanges... ... My wife, who doesn't know what newsgroups are, gets much more spam daily than I do, and I have used my real address for over 10 years on newsgroups. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Where is this "(RCSD)" crap coming from?
    ... newsgroup began to get flooded with spam. ... heard by those filtering by this acronymn. ... The only reason the saw this thread was because I used RCSD in the subject! ... It's annoying enough that I'm going to have to reinstate my killfile on this ...
    (rec.collecting.stamps.discuss)
  • Re: Google groups Kill file
    ... Dave Hill wrote: ... Go to the following and then do a search for Killfile ... When I used my real address some years ago on usenet I started to collect spam, and I am still getting it to this day on every address I posted with on usenet. ...
    (uk.rec.gardening)
  • Re: goodbye RGRD
    ... The situation with spam ON GOOGLE GROUPS is bad. ... Ditch GG and switch to a *real* usenet service, ... I haven't even needed a killfile. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)
  • Re: Can I really get over 1,000,000 visitors every month?
    ... Can you really lose your account when you spam on Usenet ... which is also the reason that I now rarely ... report spam in this group. ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)