----Original Message----
>From: Daniel Berlin
>Sent: 31 May 2005 18:00
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> ----Original Message----
>>> From: Russ Allbery
>>> Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
>>> There are many on-line newspapers that I refuse to read articles from,
>>> for example, because I don't want to create an account. That creates a
>>> piece of authorization out there that I have to record a password for
>>> and that I'm to some degree responsible for.
>> Whenever I come across one of those interfaces, I test it to see if
>> it'll let me create an account called 'guest' with password 'guest'. (I
>> believe in keeping the old net.traditions alive!) If it wants an email
>> address, I use '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.
> And then if we need more info for your bug report, and can't reach you,
> we'll simply close it.
Oh, really?
At precisely *which* on-line newspaper site do you expect to find me
entering gcc bug reports?
:-P~~~~
Heh, I admit that was a bit O-T; I wasn't recommending that solution for a
situation where you actually _want_ to get in touch with someone, but just
for the general 'I can't read the article on this newspaper's site without
registering' case.
For bugzilla I use my real email address, because of course if I report a
bug I want to hear back about it.
I had an even stupider version of this whole debate a little while ago on
IIRC the binutils mailing list, where someone refused to enter a bug report
into bugzilla because it was going to set a cookie and they thought that it
was somehow sinister. I'm all in favour of people being informed, and
closely guarding their privacy rights, but ranting and raving because you
think a cookie is some kind of evil demon that will magically spy on you is
the sign of a paranoid conspiracy loon, not a keen eye for privacy
violations.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
