Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 19:04:20 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: RHIDE: CPU working at full capacity
In-Reply-To: <BquK7EAWPMw0EwL$@foobar.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980118185950.19572B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Paul Shirley wrote:

> >> Paul Shirley: my email address is 'obvious'ly anti-spammed
> >Yes and anti reply too. 
> 
> 2 reasons: I don't want mailbots seeing my address anywhere, I really
> hate cc'ed replies (particularly if I've not asked for help)

It is IMHO impolite to include a fake address in the headers of your
message, because many people (me included) who don't have time to look at
the headers and detect fakes will go ahead and reply to your fake address
and get the messages bounce back to them.  Apart of being annoying, some
people even have to pay for the bouncing messages because they pay for the
mail by the volume. 

Is the junk mail so bad that it is worth to punish those who have nothing 
to do with the junk and wish you only well?