On 2010-09-13, Joseph Gwinn <joegw...@comcast.net> wrote: > Unruh, > > In article <slrni8ru62.i6p.un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca>, > unruh <un...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > >> On 2010-09-13, David L. Mills <mi...@udel.edu> wrote: >> > [snip] >> >> > ... And, by the way, mail sent to your alleged mail address is >> > returned to sender as undeliverable. >> >> Yes, I am sorry about that but it is done in order to slightly reduce >> the spam I get. It should be clear how to alter it, but I realise that >> that makes more work for the responder. For a long time I did not munge >> my address, and as a result am on a number of spam lists. > > The address did not look munged to me either. It makes perfect sense for a > physicist to name servers after physics objects.
Ah, I finally looked at it. I used to use the nn new reader which munged my email address. I recently (well a year ago) switched to slrn, and just assumed that the same would occur there. YOur comments caused me to actually read one of my posts as it iappeared on the newsgoup, and sure enough it is the address of the machine running slrn ( which does not receive mail) instead of the munged address. Sorry about the wrong explanation. If you really want to email me you can remove the wormhole. But answering on the list is probably better anyway. > > The standard approach is to put the demunging instructions in your sig. > Like: > "Please remove reference to the entrance to a worm's burrow from email > address." > Something too hard for a computer to figure out, but easy for a human. > > Joe Gwinn _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
