give me a break! 2014/06/16 0:46 "Chris Bannister" <elided-by-request>: > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:46:18PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > > I'd rather reply to you off-list to keep the noise level down, but -- > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Pol Hallen > > <deben@[_expletive_deleted_].org> wrote: > > Just for the record, some people consider it rude to have the actual > email address in the attribution e.g. > > "On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:46:18PM +0900, Joel Rees <email-address> wrote:"
Some people consider it just as rude to mess with other people's headers even when quoted in the message body. You've been around long enough to be aware of that. I'm also sure you've been around long enough to understand the corporate greed that currently stands in the way of implementing the proper solution to the conundrum: mail-list specific addresses. And I'm sure you are aware that the compromise solution of address-munging in the openly published archives, with original text available through a controlled interface, is enough of a hurdle to keep the address harvesting at a reasonable level. > Mutt doesn't do it unless you configure it to. It doesn't personally > worry me, my address is splattered around the net as it is! :) Then why bring it up here? > > -- replying to your e-mail address is going to screw up my filter heuristics. > > You check for outgoing spam? You don't trust yourself? :) Are you not using outgoing addresses in your auto-whitelist rules? Although, come to think of it, with the current corporate warfare making it ever harder to maintain a clean internal LAN, we probably should be checking our outgoing envelope headers at the firewalls.
