Joseph J. Strout (jstrout@ucsd.edu) wrote in * In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.970513130935.19729B-100000@panix.com>, Charles * Platt <cp@panix.com> wrote: * >> >Unacceptable messages include personal attacks, messages posted * >> >without a valid sender address, and any message not pertaining to the * >> >topics above. * > * >I would like to interpret "valid sender address" as meaning an address to * >which replies can be sent, without them bouncing. This would include * >anonymous remailers that allow an (anonymized) reply function. It would * >exclude anonymous remailers that don't allow such a function. * > * >Perhaps we could hear from the person who drafted the CFV to clarify this * >point. Or Keith Lynch could tell us whether he plans to use this * >interpretation. * * Yes, I drafted the CFV, and this is exactly what I meant by "valid sender * address". This is clearly distinguishable from a fake address, which does * not really exist and to which no email can be sent. Requiring a valid * return address applies a small amount of accountability to the poster. * This is the same criterion used, for example, when posting via DejaNews. There is nothing good about this "accountability", and this is precisely what I object to in the CFV. There is no need for "accountability" in the moderated newsgroup. - Igor.