Heads up, softrec voters
 

I have been perusing the news.groups faq and it appears that the vote
takers, when the call for vote is taken, are required to post the validated
real email addresses of everyone who voted in effort to avoid voter fraud.
So voting means time for a new mail.com address or an invitation to spam
central it appears....

EJ

In article ,
Eric Johnson wrote:
I have been perusing the news.groups faq and it appears that the vote
takers, when the call for vote is taken, are required to post the validated
real email addresses of everyone who voted in effort to avoid voter fraud.
So voting means time for a new mail.com address or an invitation to spam
central it appears....

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way, making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my domain
name-space, for the vote.

I can also provide _durable_ addresses, to be used only for USENET posting,
where any messages 'replying' to a posting will be passed through, but anything
else gets rejected. (Yes, I run a 'psychic' mail-server -- it can tell the
difference between a reply generated by newsreader client software, and a
direct e-mail. This is 'how' I post with an un-munged, reply-able address,
and don't see _any_ spam in my inbox. :)

In article ,
Eric Johnson wrote:
I have been perusing the news.groups faq and it appears that the vote
takers, when the call for vote is taken, are required to post the validated
real email addresses of everyone who voted in effort to avoid voter fraud.
So voting means time for a new mail.com address or an invitation to spam
central it appears....

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way, making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my domain
name-space, for the vote.

I can also provide _durable_ addresses, to be used only for USENET posting,
where any messages 'replying' to a posting will be passed through, but anything
else gets rejected. (Yes, I run a 'psychic' mail-server -- it can tell the
difference between a reply generated by newsreader client software, and a
direct e-mail. This is 'how' I post with an un-munged, reply-able address,
and don't see _any_ spam in my inbox. :)

In article s.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way, making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my domain
name-space, for the vote.

Question:

I assume addresses must be valid in order to vote (IOW, no anti-UBE
strings included)?

If so, is there any rule restricting a voter from using a one-time
throwaway (but valid) address?

djb

In article s.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way, making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my domain
name-space, for the vote.

Question:

I assume addresses must be valid in order to vote (IOW, no anti-UBE
strings included)?

If so, is there any rule restricting a voter from using a one-time
throwaway (but valid) address?

djb

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
In article s.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way,
making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I
am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my
domain
name-space, for the vote.

Question:

I assume addresses must be valid in order to vote (IOW, no anti-UBE
strings included)?

If so, is there any rule restricting a voter from using a one-time
throwaway (but valid) address?

djb

how would they know?

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
In article s.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way,
making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I
am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my
domain
name-space, for the vote.

Question:

I assume addresses must be valid in order to vote (IOW, no anti-UBE
strings included)?

If so, is there any rule restricting a voter from using a one-time
throwaway (but valid) address?

djb

how would they know?

In article .ca,
Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article s.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way, making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my domain
name-space, for the vote.

Question:

I assume addresses must be valid in order to vote (IOW, no anti-UBE
strings included)?

Correct. There is an auto-confirm to the 'sending' address. To prevent you
voting "somebody else's" address, among other things.

If so, is there any rule restricting a voter from using a one-time
throwaway (but valid) address?

If there was, I wouldn't be offering to provide such addresses. grin




Nope. none whatsoever. Which is

In article .ca,
Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article s.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Technical correction:
The vote-taker normally publishes a munged form of the 'real' address.
However, all the addresses in the list are munged in the same way, making
it trivial to re-construct the 'real' addresses.

Note: for anybody _whom_I_recognize_ as a rec.woodworking participant, I am
willing to provide a temporary forwarding e-mail address out of my domain
name-space, for the vote.

Question:

I assume addresses must be valid in order to vote (IOW, no anti-UBE
strings included)?

Correct. There is an auto-confirm to the 'sending' address. To prevent you
voting "somebody else's" address, among other things.

If so, is there any rule restricting a voter from using a one-time
throwaway (but valid) address?

If there was, I wouldn't be offering to provide such addresses. grin




Nope. none whatsoever. Which is

In article rs.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Correct. There is an auto-confirm to the 'sending' address. To prevent you
voting "somebody else's" address, among other things.

Okay, that's easy then. I can create an address for this, then toss it.

Thanks.

djb

In article rs.com,
Robert Bonomi wrote:

Correct. There is an auto-confirm to the 'sending' address. To prevent you
voting "somebody else's" address, among other things.

Okay, that's easy then. I can create an address for this, then toss it.

Thanks.

djb

Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

Correct. There is an auto-confirm to the 'sending' address. To
prevent you voting "somebody else's" address, among other things.

Okay, that's easy then. I can create an address for this, then toss
it.

Perhaps we should see if there will be a vote first. Not all RFDs go to the
CFV stage.

--
Bill

Dave Balderstone wrote in
tone.ca:

Correct. There is an auto-confirm to the 'sending' address. To
prevent you voting "somebody else's" address, among other things.

Okay, that's easy then. I can create an address for this, then toss
it.

Perhaps we should see if there will be a vote first. Not all RFDs go to the
CFV stage.

--
Bill

In article , Woodchuck Bill
wrote:

Perhaps we should see if there will be a vote first. Not all RFDs go to the
CFV stage.

I actually don't think this one will, based on an email I received last
night from one of hte proposed moderators, but I actually hope it does.

In article , Woodchuck Bill
wrote:

Perhaps we should see if there will be a vote first. Not all RFDs go to the
CFV stage.

I actually don't think this one will, based on an email I received last
night from one of hte proposed moderators, but I actually hope it does.

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:32:35 -0500, Eric Johnson wrote:
I have been perusing the news.groups faq and it appears that the vote
takers, when the call for vote is taken, are required to post the validated
real email addresses of everyone who voted in effort to avoid voter fraud.
So voting means time for a new mail.com address or an invitation to spam
central it appears....

I use spamcop.net to filter my mail, which blocks about 98% of the
crap sent to me. I've even stopped checking the held spam for real
mail, having never seen a real message in there in months. Worth the
30 bucks a year, to allow me to be reachable by real people and use
my real address for stuff like this.

I'm just sayin'...

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:32:35 -0500, Eric Johnson wrote:
I have been perusing the news.groups faq and it appears that the vote
takers, when the call for vote is taken, are required to post the validated
real email addresses of everyone who voted in effort to avoid voter fraud.
So voting means time for a new mail.com address or an invitation to spam
central it appears....

I use spamcop.net to filter my mail, which blocks about 98% of the
crap sent to me. I've even stopped checking the held spam for real
mail, having never seen a real message in there in months. Worth the
30 bucks a year, to allow me to be reachable by real people and use
my real address for stuff like this.

I'm just sayin'...

Dave Hinz