hi

hi

Post by Brian Glinian » Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:17:58



hey
 
 
 

hi

Post by brian hile » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 03:07:57



> hey

Hey back.

=Brian

 
 
 

hi

Post by The.Central.Scrutinizer.wakaw.. » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 04:04:31



>hey

ho
 
 
 

hi

Post by Cyrille Lefevr » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:55:20


the invalid keyword is standardized and should be placed after
the domain part as I do and not before.

Cyrille.
--


Supprimer "%no-spam" et ".invalid" pour me repondre. | about who it chooses
Remove "%no-spam" and ".invalid" to answer me back.  | to be friends with.

 
 
 

hi

Post by The.Central.Scrutinizer.wakaw.. » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:12:14




>the invalid keyword is standardized and should be placed after
>the domain part as I do and not before.

It doesn't matter.  Spam harvesters have only to see "pobox.com" anwhere after

the spam.
 
 
 

hi

Post by Cyrille Lefevr » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:19:58





> >the invalid keyword is standardized and should be placed after
> >the domain part as I do and not before.

> It doesn't matter.  Spam harvesters have only to see "pobox.com" anwhere after

> the spam.

you're wrong. .invalid should be handler by mail or news readers.
imagine I wanted to answer you in private mail, w/ a .invalid
suffix, the mail would not be send by the mail or news reader
until I get rid of it. that's the standard says but I don't know
if every mail or news readers really take care ofthis ?

Cyrille.
--


Supprimer "%no-spam" et ".invalid" pour me repondre. | about who it chooses
Remove "%no-spam" and ".invalid" to answer me back.  | to be friends with.

 
 
 

hi

Post by The.Central.Scrutinizer.wakaw.. » Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:47:59






>> >the invalid keyword is standardized and should be placed after
>> >the domain part as I do and not before.

>> It doesn't matter.  Spam harvesters have only to see "pobox.com" anwhere after

>> the spam.

>you're wrong. .invalid should be handler by mail or news readers.
>imagine I wanted to answer you in private mail, w/ a .invalid
>suffix, the mail would not be send by the mail or news reader
>until I get rid of it. that's the standard says but I don't know
>if every mail or news readers really take care ofthis ?

AFAIK, *no* e-mail or newsreader really takes care of it.  If they did that
similar functionality would make harvesting the munged e-mail address trivial
for spamming.
 
 
 

hi

Post by Michael Maxwel » Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:10:30



> hey

Whassup, dude?

--
Michael Maxwell <mmaxwell at spss dot com>
SPSS Systems Specialist
"The noble soul has reverence for itself." -- F. Nietzsche