Re: Junk Mail

Nick Zitzmann (nickzman@eskimo.com)
26 Jan 97 12:38:19 -0800

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Kent Landfield: "Re: List-server/News two-way gateways"
Previous message: Nick Zitzmann: "Re: Junk Mail"
Maybe in reply to: Nick Zitzmann: "Junk Mail"
Next in thread: Mark Eckenwiler: "Re: Junk Mail"

On Sat, Jan 25, 1997 5:19 PM, Edward Reid
<mailto:faqmail@paleo.greensboro.fl.us> wrote:
> Others have given various reasons for not hiding your email
> address when posting an FAQ. I'd add that I think a high
> percentage of the email I get in response to the diabetes FAQ is
> from net newbies. These are the very people most likely to be
> confused by a fake address and least likely to fix it properly.
> This is a particularly good reason for me not to hide my
> address.

Actually, that sounds good to me. <8*)

I've had a few new users reply to my FAQ, then quote an entire part of the
FAQ and mail it back to me. Sometimes I really hate it when people don't
know when to quote and not to quote... <8*(

Also, quite a few times now, I've had a few very ambitious new users mail
me with every tip and trick that they can think of which I could put in the
FAQ. Too bad that those tips and tricks are usually there already, they
just didn't read... Although every once in a while I do get one person who
will give me some new information to add, but these are mostly the
experienced users... <8*S

> Another reason for not hiding is simply the philosophy that we
> should fix the problem rather than hiding from it.

Of course, in that case, how are we going to fix it? <8*( I'd like to know
the answers, too, but I really don't have much to say...

> I fear that it will take legislation. The entry cost is too
> cheap, and it takes very few to mess it up for the rest. When
> 99.9% compliance fixes a problem, then education has a chance.
> We need something like 99.9999% compliance.

For reasons I mentioned earlier, I sure as heck hope that it doesn't take
any legislation. Some people in the US government already want to have
total control over the InterNet. Problem is, we don't know what they're
going to do with it.

> I don't think FAQ maintainers are being specially targeted.
> Frankly, that would be stupid of the advertisers. (Then again
> ...) FAQ maintainers are probably one of the more astute and
> skeptical bunches around the net. Who is less likely to fall for
> the worthless products and crusades promoted by the spammers?
> It's been widely observed that worthwhile products and causes
> are almost never spam meat.

I don't think they are, either. But news.answers is a widespread group,
there's got to be some people scanning through it and grabbing addresses
out of article headers. The junk mailers will send their stuff anywhere,
not just to any distinct kinds of users...

Nick Zitzmann http://orion.edmonds.wednet.edu/
(Resident Macintosh Tweaker)
nickzman@eskimo.com (InterNet) "Saying that PCs are the best
zitzmann@edmonds.wednet.edu (Alt.) systems in the world is like
sticking your head in the sand!"
- me

WARNING: Any and all junk mail sent to my address(es) will be returned to
the postmaster of the offending site for inspection.

Next message: Kent Landfield: "Re: List-server/News two-way gateways"
Previous message: Nick Zitzmann: "Re: Junk Mail"
Maybe in reply to: Nick Zitzmann: "Junk Mail"
Next in thread: Mark Eckenwiler: "Re: Junk Mail"

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]