Xref: utzoo comp.sources.wanted:7476 comp.unix.questions:13741
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!cseg!dws
From: dws@cseg.uucp (David W. Summers)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: pattern matching
Summary: I don't think this address is "USELESS" because I can
	 mail to anyone with this type of address.
Message-ID: <2428@cveg.uucp>
Date: 20 May 89 00:39:43 GMT
References: <2414@cveg.uucp> <11733@well.UUCP>
Sender: netnews@cveg.uucp
Followup-To: comp.sources.wanted
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Lines: 26


In article <11733@well.UUCP>, pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
> In the referenced message, mhb@hcx.uucp (MARK H BOTNER) wrote:
> }My address is:
> }     mhb@cseg.uucp
> 
> That address is useless, so I'm posting this.  This is free software, no
> copyright or trade secret restrictions whatsoever.
> ---
> Jef
> 
>             Jef Poskanzer   jef@helios.ee.lbl.gov   ...well!pokey

Thank you for replying to Mark Botner.  He and I are working on some routines
to allow a BBS to do file matching on user entered patterns.

My question is:  Why is this addresses useless?  I noticed that you had the
the same return address in your 'From: ' header (specifically,
"pokey@well.uucp").  This is the same *type* of address as ours.  Even the
"well!pokey" is the same type of address, although your other address in your
signature is obviously a domain name type which is different.  I don't think
our address is really useless as I can mail to ANYONE with that type of 
address (as long as the routing maps are correct).

- David Summers
(dws@cseg.uucp) - The "curious about E-Mail" and "wanting to get it right" guy.