Re: spam harvesting
Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-mutt <at> firinn.org>
2002-09-01 00:25:07 GMT
On Sep 01, Cameron Simpson [cs <at> zip.com.au] wrote:
> On 13:44 31 Aug 2002, Jeremy Blosser <jblosser-mutt <at> firinn.org> wrote:
> | On Aug 31, Aaron Goldblatt [lists-mutt <at> goldblatt.net] wrote:
> | > an fyi so yall know it's happening, my email address used exclusively
> | > for mutt-users and mutt-dev has been harvested for spam. i believe i
> | > posted to mutt-users exactly once, and never to mutt-dev.
> | Blame the people that are archiving this list on the web without
> | obfuscating the addresses.
> Feh. If the addresses are mechanically munged, and decodable by humans
> reading the archive, then the munging can be undone by address harvesters.
> And since they don;t care about 100% accuracy, they only have to get it
> mostly right.
Anything they have to do is more cost for them, and means less of them are
able to do it. And they aren't known for being bright, either. (At some
point, for example, they appear to have determined that addresses of the
form 'foo-bar <at> domain.com' are munged forms of 'bar <at> domain.com', which is
> Personally, I have long considered hiding from spammers a waste of
> effort. A laudable ideal perhaps, but futile. Install spamassassin or
> one of the newer Bayesian filters and cease to hide. You will feel freer.
No, I will feel chained to my mail servers as people take that attitude,
which has the nice effect of making it so they don't see the spam in their
inbox, but the mail servers still see it and have to not only deal with it
as normal, but also have to deal with the added processing introduced by
determining if each and every message is spam or not, and what to do with