> do you mind if i email you off group? i was going to answer your
> question about toilet training, but i don't like to email
> without permission.

> enigma wrote:

>> do you mind if i email you off group? i was going to answer your
>> question about toilet training, but i don't like to email
>> without permission.

>
>
> Since when do you need permission to email someone?
>
> Nyx
>

> Troia wrote:

>> I'd never go back to the days of putting a valid address in "From",
>> though; I get far and away enough spam as it is, and on the last valid
>> address I used for newsgroup posts, was getting about 800/day despite
>> having NEVER emailed from that address, using it ONLY for newsgroup posts.

>
> As a counterpoint, I've had this same email address, never munged,
> for nigh unto a decade, and I see a couple of spam emails a week in my
> inbox, and perhaps fifty a week getting far enough in to hit the
> Bayesian filter. I have a very clever and slightly conceited mail admin,
> though.

> Joseph Brenner wrote:

>> Troia gmail.removethis.com> writes:

>>> Joseph Brenner wrote:

>> I think you need better spam-filters, and myself I use a
>> "whitelist" strategy also (mail from people on the whitelist
>> gets automatically refiled to a folder I look at first).

> My experience of whitelists with valid addresses (based on
> clients who've tried it) is that the vast majority of people who
> want to contact someone will nonetheless refuse to go through a
> whitelist verification process.

> Nyx wrote:
>

>> enigma wrote:
>>

>>> do you mind if i email you off group? i was going to answer your
>>> question about toilet training, but i don't like to email
>>> without permission.

>>
>>
>>
>> Since when do you need permission to email someone?
>>
>> Nyx
>>

>
> It is considered standard Usenet etiquette, actually, to not email
> someone (contact off-group) without asking first.

> "siani" velvet.net> wrote in message
> news:505i4nF1ejg8fU1@mid.individual.net...

>> why did most really old newsreaders have an option of "reply to poster and
>> to group" then? why was that the default for most people when i used to
>> read usenet through a pure text interface?
>>
>> seriously, i've been on usenet for more than half my life, and i'm pretty
>> sure that is NOT the case. it may be true in certain specialist forums,
>> but it is DEFINITELY not standard usenet ettiquette.

>
> Outlook Express, latest version, still has that. "Reply" and "Reply Group".
>
> I've not seen anyone ever ask for permission before, but I've not been on
> lists about domination etc. Could be different there, as someone suggested.
>
>