Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 18:28:58 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: Shawn Hargreaves <Shawn AT talula DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Anti-spammed addresses (was: .PCX files in Allegro)
In-Reply-To: <FrCyOHA2Uey0Eway@talula.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980125182008.6968D-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Shawn Hargreaves wrote:

> Imagine that some people started going around throwing paint balls at
> everyone they passed on the streets. This would be obnoxious and
> antisocial, and I think you would probably become very angry about it.
> You could avoid the problem by just staying indoors all the time, but I
> find it hard to imagine that anyone would seriously consider that as a
> good solution to the problem!

If using anti-spammed addresses would be analogous to staying indoors, it
would be not as bad as it is now.  But what it really does is to cause
replies to those addresses to bounce back to people like me who cannot
afford reading all the headers to detect such fake addresses and delete
them before sending.  Bouncing messages are annoying, waste bandwidth, and
some people have even to pay for them if their ISP charges them by mail
volume.

So whoever uses the fake address is actually punishing those who want to
help them; it is therefore more like catching those paint balls and
throwing them at somebody who is holding a friendly conversation with you. 
This is IMHO just plain rude.