Heads up, softrec voters

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. :)

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?

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

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

Nope. none whatsoever. Which is

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

Thanks.

djb

Dave Balderstone wrote in news:150920041615175485%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:

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.

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

I'm just sayin'...

Dave Hinz