Re: Hi!

[Julian Shaw <julian@dragonfire.demon.co.uk>]

In message , "Stuart M. Castergine" <scasterg@dispatch.com> writes
>The address returned by IAF, kate@novercia.uk, is definitely bogus. It
>doesn't show up when you query the nameserver and just to make sure I
>tried to send mail there: 
>
>550 kate@novercia.uk... Host unknown (Name server: novercia.uk: host not 
>found)
>
>Probably some fan playing a joke on us all.
>

I'm not sure what prompted this mailing as I don't have the original
thread, but I posted something myself on Thursday 14th November which
specifically mentioned that e-mail address. However, I was also careful
to point out that mailing to it would get a 'host unknown' message. (For
some reason the posting I sent does not appear to be in either r.m.g. or
love-hounds - as far as I can see - although another posting that day
did show up.)

I'm mentioning this in case someone else *did* see it and as a result I
am the 'fan' mentioned above. In that case I would just like to make it
clear that I was not playing a joke on anybody - where Kate is concerned
I don't do that sort of thing and I don't find it funny if anybody else
does.

For anyone interested to know how I came by this address, simply point
your browser at http://bigfoot.com/ and enter 'KATE BUSH' in the name
box. You should get the response 'kate@novercia.com'. (There is usually
another Kate Bush mentioned and an address - I don't think it's *the*
Kate though.)

That e-mail address can surely only be one person, so one must assume
that Kate *was* online once, even if she may not be now. Of course, she
may well be online again under a more obscure name, after all
'kate@novercia.com' is a bit of a giveaway, but if she is I have no idea
what it might be.

Anybody want to try searching for 'Catherine Earnshaw'? ;-)

Julian