On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:55:58 -0600, Brian Heinrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:59:22 -0500, it is alleged that "R.Danner III" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> swaggered in to >netscape.public.mozilla.mail-news and announced: > >>David Simpson wrote: [snip] >> >> Respectfully disagree, David. There are many reasons why the user-support >>groups are on the secure server, one of the primary ones being this: Many (far >>too many) users have NO CLUE that they need to spoof their addresses for UseNet >>(which I suppose should be renamed "SpambotNet" due to spambot harvesting of >>unsuspecting users' e-mail addresses.) and the secnews groups are 100% safe from >>that /because/ they are not echoed out to the Usenet. > >Yep. > While I agree with this theory I had to learn the hard way. I learnt quickly. My SPAM mail is down to only a few a day from over twenty at one stage and I'm probably posting ten times the number of messages. >> I agree, however, that if all endusers are scared away from Mozilla, the >>project might as well shut down, and that'd be a shame, particularly after the >>glowing reviews in major magazines that I've seen since 1.0 went public. I think >>the solution would be to have Mozilla's SSL active by default, with the >>secnews.netscape.com groups ALREADY subscribed... but that's my humble opinion. > >I don't know what it's like on a clean install now, but time was when you >subscribed to NGs in Moz, you were taken directly to the n.p.m.* hierarchy; that >might explain part of the current state of affairs in these groups. > >BTW, the end-user support question is currently being debated in n.p.m.d11n; >feel free to contribute. . . . > Thanks. I'll take a lurk. ... On looking at my list of groups, that group is unavailable on my local server so maybe not. I consider that the latest post is a big improvement on previous attempts to redirect the end-users. Congratulations to Christopher Jahn. Politeness will win many more friends.
