In message , VanguardLH
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

VanguardLH WROTE:

So, are you going to next ask me why I use as my e-mail
address? Clue: LH is not a valid [cc]TLD.

So you don't get spam to it. I've been fortunate in never having had
much spam to even my old domain - @soft255.demon.co.uk; since I
registered the new one a year or two ago, I don't think I've had
_any_; if I have, I've had three or four total in that time. Despite
having used my real domain on usenet.

It's legal syntax for an e-mail address. I had problems with an email
field in the From header not being valid syntax with some NNTP server I
used awhile back but they did not force me to use the e-mail address
used to register with their service. I wasn't interested in having my
e-mail address harvested by bots or even energize a troll or spammer to
target some valid e-mail provider. To be polite, I wasn't going to use
an e-mail address that I didn't have, that someone else might get, or
inflict spam upon any domain by using a bogus e-mail address at a legit
e-mail provider (e.g., Hotmail, Yahoo, etc).

I suppose you wanted it to _look_ real, so didn't want to use the
".invalid" tld.
[]
I eventually decided that I did not want to take offline any discussions
started in Usenet. I got rid of the munging, using passphrases,
signatures telling humans how to unmunge or using a passphrase, and a
special-use account. In a couple decades here, I've only taken offline
a couple discussions (about malware where I didn't want to provide any
clues to script kiddies to assist them with their ****-shifting).

I too have had very few people email me directly in response to a usenet
post, despite using my real domain: I'd say between none and four or
five a year. (And the ones I do get are frequently ones where someone's
hit reply instead of followup, or the machinery in one of the
mailinglists-treated-as-newsgroups has gone wrong with the same effect,
i. e. a followup came to me as an email.)

I _do_ however find VanguardLH a bit clumsy to type - do you have a
preferred short form? I notice some people just say Vanguard. (I
think I've sometimes used VLH.)

Nyms are just strings to help identify someone. You don't have to
[]
References header to identify the parent post. While vanguard isn't
accurate, is is sufficient in most cases as long as some other poster
has not already established an identity using that nym. Laziness
doesn't excuse impoliteness. VLH is okay, too, again as long as no one
in the group has ever used that abbreviation. It would be like me using
Gilly or gill in an attribution line when replying to you. Might be
sufficient within the context of a discussion and even with the
community (newsgroup) where the discussion resides.

I don't think I've seen any other Vanguards in the 'groups I see you in.
I might just use the before-@ part of your "address" ...
[]
parenthesis Pete Creswell right parenthesis". E-mail address are also
not names, so I lop off the domain (right token) and just leave the
username token in the attribution line. When face-to-face, I'm not

.... as you suggest. (-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Often at work I wish they'd pay me what I'm worth, but sometimes I'm glad they
don't. (BrritSki, in uk.media.radio.archers, on 2000-12-25.)