Nuxx:16ac4169-6fa2-4162-85e2-f79c748a9502@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <16ac4169-6fa2-4162-85e2-f79c748a9502@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:44:24 -0700 (PDT) References: <2lc*4xWHs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <784aj1F1j3r9uU1@mid.individual.net> <57bbb322-a374-4d35-99bd-717a62887981@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>  <1df1b7b3-bde8-4429-8103-eb76aed8f91a@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>    <874ov5419y.fsf@toy.config>   Lines: 45 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243629864 26965 127.0.0.1 (29 May 2009 20:44:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:44:24 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3867 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:705380

On May 29, 9:54=A0am, Mark  wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 20:44:54 +0100, Adam Funk  > wrote: > > > > >On 2009-05-28, Daniel Barlow wrote: > > >> I wonder if it's possible/sensible to require that all posters use a > >> valid email address - or an email address that is not obviously invali= d, > >> at the least - for submission, but to be able to have the moderation > >> software munge it for them before posting publically. > > >> Most of the credible posters on urc are already using real email > >> addresses. =A0Those that currently don't due to spam concerns would be > >> accomodated by address munging in the moderation software. =A0Those th= at > >> don't because they are not sufficiently invested in their usenet > >> reputation to care, or who are actively trying to nymshift, would have > >> additional work made for them. > > >I think posters should be allowed to mung their addresses, but at > >their own risk of not getting rejections mails back from the > >moderation system (if it generates those). > > Agreed. =A0There's no way I would put my real email address in a usenet > post. =A0I made that mistake many years ago and I had to change ISP as a > result of the spam that followed.

Yes, poor old "_" (aka "the fuckwit Taylor") had similar problems a while back, when he kept being a complete and utter interfering dick towards certain people by trying to "police" the Internet and ignored many, many clear warnings to stop or else. It seems that revenge was had by some horrible person by forging his email address many times - but not munged, like he'd always had it. I hate to think of the number of spam emails that he's received to date since. It certainly did the trick and made him stop though, and he would appear to have learned his lesson. He also posts very rarely here now. For once, spam has had a positive effect.

I'm just glad for his sake that RudiL obviously looked back and realised what had happened with Taylor *before* deliberately and systematically disrupting *too* many threads started by those with the "wrong" opinions (which is exactly what Taylor did).