In article <[email protected]>, unruh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2010-09-13, Joseph Gwinn <[email protected]> wrote: > > Unruh, > > > > In article <[email protected]>, > > unruh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 2010-09-13, David L. Mills <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > [snip] > >> > >> > ... And, by the way, mail sent to your alleged mail address is > >> > returned to sender as undeliverable. > >> > >> Yes, I am sorry about that but it is done in order to slightly reduce > >> the spam I get. It should be clear how to alter it, but I realise that > >> that makes more work for the responder. For a long time I did not munge > >> my address, and as a result am on a number of spam lists. > > > > The address did not look munged to me either. It makes perfect sense for a > > physicist to name servers after physics objects. > > Ah, I finally looked at it. I used to use the nn new reader which munged > my email address. I recently (well a year ago) switched to slrn, and > just assumed that the same would occur there. Your comments caused me to > actually read one of my posts as it appeared on the newsgoup, and sure > enough it is the address of the machine running slrn ( which does not receive > mail) instead of the munged address. Sorry about the wrong explanation. If you > really want to email me you can remove the wormhole. But answering on > the list is probably better anyway. Ah. I wasn't today trying to email anyone, but I could see the problem should I try. Anyway, now that it's understood, it can be fixed. Joe Gwinn _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
