Re: How a correct mail looks like?
From: Chris F.A. Johnson (c.fa.johnson_at_rogers.com)
Date: 4 May 2004 21:01:05 GMT
On 2004-05-04, Robert Heller wrote:
> Gergely Kral <email@example.com>,
> In a message on Tue, 4 May 2004 19:29:12 +0000 (UTC), wrote :
> GK> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> GK> Robert Heller <email@example.com> wrote:
> GK> >GK>
> GK> >GK> My question is: do anyone know which are those facts that consider a
> GK> >GK> mail a spam?
> GK> >
> GK> >This is an E-Mail client config option. Also E-Mail addresses that end
> GK> >in digits (eg some sort of generated AOL-flavored E-Mail account or a
> GK> >randomly generated address).
> GK> >
> GK> That was it! I asked the root, mails with usernames ending with digits
> GK> are considered as spam. Which is a bad idea in my opinion.
> No, *real live people* don't have numbers in their names.
But many _usernames_ do. The standard username allocation in
Free-Nets (among other places) was two letters followed by three
> The only
> time people have numbers in their names is in SciFi movies of the
> flavor of George Orwel's "1984". There is NO technical reason for ANY
> (modern) ISP to issue usernames ending in digits (and customers of ISPs
> that *do* suggest usernames ending in digits should complain and should
> certainly be proactive in requesting a user name that is in fact a name).
Even if no more are issued, there are still tens of thousands of such
There's also no technical reason why usernames should not end in
(or otherwise contain) digits.
-- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfaj.freeshell.org/shell =================================================================== My code (if any) in this post is copyright 2004, Chris F.A. Johnson and may be copied under the terms of the GNU General Public License