Joseph J. Strout (jstrout@ucsd.edu) wrote in
* In article , Charles
* Platt 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.
