java script for "post a comment "

Allow me to step in here, even if your post wasn't directed at me. I'm
also going a wee bit off-topic here, but there are things that have to
be said once in a while.

On 2008-09-27 02:42, Mike Duffy wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars (AT) web (DOT) de> wrote [..]
I do not think this is what he means at all, but instead that the
above code is as invalid as your sender address.

1) You are no doubt correct. I was trying to see what the OP wanted without
bothering to do a web search to find the original post.

You are both correct. And I now regret what I wrote, or at least the way
I put it. I thought it was friendly enough, the OP obviously didn't.
It's just... I don't know how to help people who *really* have no clue
what they're doing. I thought a little effort on their part could be
expected. People who refuse to get involved, and people who randomly
copy scripts from dubious websites are (IMHO) the main reason why
JavaScript has such a bad reputation today.

Low barrier of entry is fine. Great even. But after they've managed to
find their way to Usenet, you'd expect them to be a *little* more
interested. Maybe it's just Google Groups, idk...

2) I assume that you realize I am hiding my address from spammers. Are you
of the opinion that we should always put it in human-only readable form,
such as:

mduffyAvideotron.ca (Replace the obvious with the obvious.)

I think what Thomas meant is that you should put your real address
there, not an obfuscated version, or a fake address. The spam's not as
bad as you would expect. In the last 2 weeks, I had 3 spam messages sent
to my Yahoo account, and all 3 were correctly filed as spam. At this
rate, why should I use a fake address?

My ISP recently dropped its NNPT service.

I've heard about this. Many ISPs have been abandoning their Usenet
caches lately. This is a sad turn indeed, but it's hardly the end of
Usenet, as some people have prophesied. It's just the local caches that
are going away. I for one have subscribed to Supernews, and while there
are many cheaper alternatives, they have excellent support, excellent
speed, and excellent retention. Well worth the 3.95 a month for a
frequent user like me (it's tax deductable too ;-).

My use of aioe is not because I want to hide.

Aioe is quite okay. I have their server added as a fallback, and it
seems to work alright. The retention's not too hot though, around 2-3
weeks max. But what can you expect, it's free to use and free to post.


Okay. That was far more off-topic than I'd intended.
Sorry :-)


- Conrad

Conrad Lender <crlender (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:EN-dnQrvPJLNCkDV4p2dnAA (AT) supernews (DOT) com:

... The spam's not as bad as you would expect.
... why should I use a fake address?

My experience is that it will always get worse & worse until you are forced
to change it (and send out a change notice to all your contacts, etc.)

To maximize the time between these events, you need to minimize the
exposure of your address.

Is it considered "okay" just to put a link to a personal website as a
signature? I have a human-readable .GIF email address at the bottom of my
homepage. Or is that more bother than de-obfuscating "mduffyAvideotron.ca"?

--
http:://pages.videotron.ca/duffym

Mike Duffy wrote:

Conrad Lender <crlender (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:EN-dnQrvPJLNCkDV4p2dnAA (AT) supernews (DOT) com:

... The spam's not as bad as you would expect.
... why should I use a fake address?

My experience is that it will always get worse & worse until you are forced
to change it (and send out a change notice to all your contacts, etc.)

I've been posting - prolifically, in some years - to Usenet since
1991, using non-obfuscated email addresses. I use those same addresses
on numerous email lists, many of which have open archives.

Those accounts don't receive a bothersome amount of spam, and what
they do receive is almost entirely caught by Thunderbird's Bayesian
filter, which I trained implicitly (ie, by marking the occasional spam
message as spam until the rate of false negatives dropped close to
zero). I haven't had the filter return a false positive in months or
years - it happens so rarely that I only check the junk messages once
a week or so.

Obfuscation is bothersome, and many people find it rude. Filtering is
the graceful solution; it lets the owner of the account assume a small
burden, rather than putting a more tiresome one on correspondents.

--
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University

In comp.lang.javascript message <gbu6f201kg8 (AT) news2 (DOT) newsguy.com>, Tue, 30
Sep 2008 09:02:37, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik (AT) newsguy (DOT) com> posted:

Obfuscation is bothersome, and many people find it rude. Filtering is
the graceful solution; it lets the owner of the account assume a small
burden, rather than putting a more tiresome one on correspondents.

There are may different types of mail-reading systems, ranging from such
as a self-programmable UNIX box which is an Internet host with a dotted
quad of its own to a simple Web mail account.

Very little of the available advice is universally applicable.

The only universal example that comes immediately to mind is "do not
publish, in a directly readable form, anything looking like E-mail
address that you do not have permission to use.". (Much spam is still
aimed at full or Turnpike message-IDs recognisably from before
2004-01-10 13:37:04 UTC = UNIX time_t $40000000; a Tm-ID left part,
though compliant with Mail RFCs, is a very unlikely E-mail address left
part).

ASIDE : One should be careful to reply to the Reply-To address and not
to the From address (though possibly to the sender address).

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.