John A Bertoglio wrote: > Denver Braughler wrote: > > John A Bertoglio wrote: > > Just have a look at the Perl script or whatever receives NNTP posts > > and munge the addresses in the headers. > Anything that can be munged by a script can be unmunged by another script.
Not if it is a lossy munge. You and I have different definitions for "munge". munge: vt. 1. a derogatory term meaning to transform information imperfectly. 2. to modify data in some way that [Denver] didn't need to get into or could not describe succinctly. > > (Or ISC could write a newsgroup in Cache' that would do it.) > A fairly significant undertaking, wouldn't you agree? Herman could do it in about a week. So, sorry, I don't agree. > > There is no rule the the From: has to appear in clear text > > in a public newsgroup hosted on a privately owned server. > No, but I like the ability to communicate directly with NG users. And those who allow such communications post their e-mail addresses. > Any method that munged an address to be unreadable by a sophisticated > script would also leave me guessing. You don't guess. You ask, "May I have your private e-mail, please?" Or you say, "Please write to me at mailbox jb on the co-laboratory dotcom server." > > I say it is possible and fairly easy. > Anything is possible. Not everything is worth doing. Protecting our e-mail addresses is worth doing (imo, of course).
