Re: RegExp: Replacing string with array variable index

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

Yes, it's rather disabling not to provide a real email. It is even
problematic for those who would wish to respond privately, for the valid
reasons you cited below. Therefore, the omission may be potentially
seen as disabling to the newsgroup as a whole. This time around,
omission was a kind of experiment--I've always used valid emails formerly.

I'll use a valid email for now. I will continue to think about it, of
course. Considering the matter introspectively, I think I acted out of
a sense of privacy, perhaps somewhat as a logical effort of regulating
disclosure, but maybe more out of my emotional sense of comfort in
sharing something I identified with myself. That is, it seemed to me
that my email was personal.

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. As a means of communicating, it was
apparently a good choice. I respect other's right to chose how to
respond to the situation: Otherwise, why else would I use an obviously
invalid email?

However, I'm not sure it's wrong to use
".invalid". The following RFC says that ".example" is for examples,
".test" is for tests, and ".invalid" is for obviously invalid domains.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt

That definition follows this:

| 2. TLDs for Testing, & Documentation Examples
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| There is a need for top level domain (TLD) names that can be used for
| creating names which, without fear of conflicts with current or
| future actual TLD names in the global DNS, can be used for private
| testing of existing DNS related code, examples in documentation, DNS
| related experimentation, invalid DNS names, or other similar uses.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[...]


Well, I guess you're right, looking over it again. The section title
does limit the scope. Nonetheless, the effect is to reserve a
collection of addresses that on sight are invalid or for specialized
use. I therefore see an opportunity to expand on the standard by a
broader use of those domains in other contexts. A potential
conflict--yes--but a means of communicating. I guess the point really
is that it was supposed to be WRONG to use them in the way I intended.

And frankly, if you actually subsume activities that prevent someone from
communicating with you in private under "Testing, & Documentation Examples"
and "similar uses", you should not be using Usenet -- the thing with the
*people*. The From and Reply-To headers exist not only for identifying the
author of the message (which is why pseudonyms and nick names only are a
rather bad idea, YMMV), but also so that topics which are not of general
interest to the subscribers of the newsgroup be discussed off-group (that
includes, but is not limited to, singular advice on how to post to get the
best answers out of the group, clarifying on-group misunderstandings before
they evolve into flame wars, notification about solutions to long time
unsolved problems, and the like.) BTDT, both as sender and receiver.

Good points.

More, "obviously invalid domains" MUST NOT be used within address headers,
see RFC 1036, sections 2.1.1, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2, and RFC 2822 (that which
describes named "Internet syntax"), section 3.4.1. "A mailbox receives
mail." "foo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is clearly not a mailbox.

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1036>
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2822>


I looked at the sections, I admit I should read the documents
thoroughly. I probably need to very thoroughly read the RFCs one day.
It's a wall I've hit up against: The information may be abstract, but
it's concrete enough to be arbitrary.

[...]

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.

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

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

I myself have notified people when I can tell that their machine has
been hacked into and used to distribute spam. I don't usually notify
when it comes from an ISP that provides an email service, though.

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.

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? I can
understand it as a form of protest, as an attempt to filter out those
you feel hurt newsgroups, and perhaps even as a way of artificially
modifying your interaction with newsgroups to conform to your desire to
have no munging. 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.


<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.

One thing though: I totally can't find what's he hinting at half the
time he suggests a reader look at the FAQ.

I try to refer to the relevant section(s) of the FAQ (most of the time it
needs to be, unfortunately, <http://jibbering.com/faq/#posting>). If that
does not suffice, you should name those instances so that my FAQ references
might be improved or that the FAQ might be better structured for reference.

Okay.

Jon.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MV is the most published author of SAP
    ... I'm merely contributing to it. ... The reason MV and myself have posted so many times here is to try to ... of literature argue that water played a role in human evolution, ... don't give a left monkey's bollock whether you killfile me or not. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: RegExp: Replacing string with array variable index
    ... information, including killfile me. ... Spam is a curious kind of creature living out in the waters of the ... it stands to reason that e-mail will one ... Usenet3 to replace Usenet. ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Popeye was wrong about being right and he is clueless also.
    ... None of those links bear any interest to me, or clarify any reason why I ... You don't have anyone in -any- killfile. ... Notice some members begging other members to prevent you from posting. ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: Weeding out the dross
    ... Use your killfile instead. ... posters you don't want to read, for whatever reason. ... the remark that you are criticizing, so the other party will know what ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Emailing
    ... I never would have seen it since I already have that person in my killfile as one of the others you replied to. ... replying to my email as it is invalid. ... proofread my messgaes for errors unlike trolls. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)