"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
news
Some, or many, here disapprove of anonymous postings. I did an
experiment.

I don't disapprove at all.
I just factor it in if the thread takes a "interesting" turn.

My conclusion? I hate spam, and spammers' 'bots. I'll stay anonymous. It's
simply easier than building ever more complex filters and firewalls. I'll
cheerfully give my real email address to humans.

I'm not sure I agree with the "anonymous" part. I think you're saying "I'll
keep my email address private." To me, that's not anonymity.

Some folks choose to have unlisted telephone numbers. That's fine by me.
I do think posting with you're real name or a "thinly veiled" nom de'
newsgroups is valuable.

In article ,
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:58:09 +0000, patrick conroy wrote:

Some folks choose to have unlisted telephone numbers. That's fine by me.
I do think posting with you're real name or a "thinly veiled" nom de'
newsgroups is valuable.

I'll think about it. Thanks for your comments.


*Technique* counts!

I post with a valid, unmunged, e-mail address, and have for years. The
_same_ address, in fact.

See, I've got the next-best thing to a 'psychic mail-server'. grin

*IF* you 'reply' to one of my postings, from =inside= your news-reader,
It is almost certain that I'll see it.

If somebody 'scrapes' that address, and tries to send mail to it -directly-,
The incoming message is _rejected_ by my mail-server, with the error-code
telling a _person_ how they can send mail that will get through.

To date, _that_ system has not had even a -single- 'false positive'.
*NOBODY* has used the method described in the error message.