I didn't miss it at all. There was no irony. It's mostly just a matter of opinion, and mine is that Windows works very poorly. I only use it because a couple apps I use require it. And it was not a moral violation (by my standard) when he (would have) said it; it was just not true (still by my opinion).
I wonder how well the harvesters have thought out their coding in order to NOT spam the.gov addresses. Given the address NOSPAMuser@NOSPAMfbi.NOSPAMgov perhaps they first check to see if it's a.gov address and, if it is, then they ignore it and go to the next address. But failing the check for.gov, maybe they accept it and then remove the "NOSPAM" and could end up with a.gov address after all. Slim chance? It could be interesting if somehow they could be tricked into spamming our wonderful FBI.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't miss it at all. There was no irony. It's mostly just a matter of opinion, and mine is that Windows works very poorly. I only use it because a couple apps I use require it. And it was not a moral violation (by my standard) when he (would have) said it; it was just not true (still by my opinion).
Of course you can say these things.(e.g. Windows actually works pretty well.) Slashdot has no rule against lying.
Absolutely, shepd! Good idea.
You don't put users and the servers inside the same firewall... do you?
I wonder how well the harvesters have thought out their coding in order to NOT spam the .gov addresses. Given the address NOSPAMuser@NOSPAMfbi.NOSPAMgov perhaps they first check to see if it's a .gov address and, if it is, then they ignore it and go to the next address. But failing the check for .gov, maybe they accept it and then remove the "NOSPAM" and could end up with a .gov address after all. Slim chance? It could be interesting if somehow they could be tricked into spamming our wonderful FBI.