Re: static allocation question...

From: Richard Bos (rlb_at_hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl)
Date: 10/07/03 

Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:50:09 GMT

Joona I Palaste <palaste@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:

> Richard Bos <rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl> scribbled the following:
> > He's right, though. IIRC you're even in violation of an RFC if you don't
> > have a valid reply-to. Apart from that, some people, me included, won't
> > unmunge an address to send e-mail.
>
> Why won't you? Because you don't have the time? Because you don't know
> how? Because you have to uphold a code of honour and to unmunge
> addresses would be a disgrace?

Because if people won't be decent netizens, keep to the RFCs and refrain
from munging their addresses (and by munging, add to the load on the
central DNS servers, and thereby to all the rest of us), I don't see why
I should make any extra effort for their sakes.

Richard

Relevant Pages

  • Re: static allocation question...
    ... >> You could lose your account. ... IIRC you're even in violation of an RFC if you don't ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Question on device driver ? [OT]
    ... Richard Heathfield wrote: ... What part of RFC 1855 is it in "clear" violation of? ... My daughter downloads Japanese films with that e-mule ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Question on device driver ? [OT]
    ... Richard Heathfield wrote: ... Richard, you said, and I quote, "this is in clear violation of RFC 1855". ... poster around, nor the most frequent. ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: string length and newlines
    ... are in violation of RFC. ... from a TEXTAREA control. ... an incorrect browser violating RFC ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)
  • Re: Newbie: Help with munging please
    ... "Munging" email addresses is hazardous. ... I prefer to use RFC 2606 compliant email addresses instead of "munged" ... harvested by viruses from the local message store on infected computers. ... Which is why I recommend a disposable email address. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)