Re: In defense of anonymity

[patrick conroy]

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.

[Australopithecus scobis]

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

[Robert Bonomi]

*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'.

*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.