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

Reply to
Eric Johnson
Loading thread data ...

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. :)

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

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

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

how would they know?

Reply to
Charles Spitzer

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

Reply to
Robert Bonomi

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

Thanks.

djb

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

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.

Reply to
Woodchuck Bill

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.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

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

Reply to
Dave Hinz

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.