[linux-elitists] email address hiding, was re: Spam filters
D. Joe Anderson
deejoe at etrumeus.com
Thu Mar 26 12:18:18 PDT 2009
(subject changed in hopes of kicking up the google juice a tiny bit)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 02:46:39PM -0400, Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:
> * Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> [2009-03-26 09:37-0700]
> > Quoting D. Joe (deejoe at etrumeus.com):
> > > If you've got even a whiff of responsibility for non-elitists as
> > > either a vendor of tools or services or as some sort of evangelist or
> > > *whatever*, then you should be at least mildly conversant with some
> > > arguments for hiding, lest you come off like a completely out-of-touch
> > > loon.
> > We've heard them. They're transparent rubbish. We've dissected them
> > and FAQed the refutations. Got the t-shirts, wore them out.
Win: Googling "reply-to" brings up the "considered harmful"
page as the top hit.
If there is a similar, short incantation that reveals these
refutations with regard to email address hiding, I haven't
managed to stumble across it easily.
With "reply-to" I think this has been battled at least to a
draw, in which it can at worst be argued that to munge or not is
a religious issue, an issue in which at least people know, or
can easily find out, what the arguments are.
For hiding, what I tend to find are a bunch of how-to's and
why-to's, which is not at all what we want.
> Here is my recent attempt at doing so, feedback welcome:
Thank you, that's very helpful.
In terms of feedback, the very last line about "a few parasites"
though true in numbers of communicators, still has a whiff about
it of denying or minimizing the extent of the problem in terms
of the aggregate flow of mail.
But overall, it is written in a very open, conciliatory tone
that has a good chance of convincing not just those on the
fence, but maybe even some committed proponents of hiding as
More information about the linux-elitists