From: Randall Randall (randall@randallsquared.com)
Date: Tue Sep 09 2003 - 04:20:09 MDT
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 07:15 PM, Emlyn O'regan wrote:
>> Yes, it's possible, but it would be trivial to make the spambots
>> notice and harvest the new address, so it may not be worth it.
>
> So put a NOSPAM in the address, or space it with underscores or
> something.
If that worked, you could have done it for the first address
in the first place, and not bothered changing it. But it
doesn't seem to work. Spam harvesters are pretty smart
programs, I think.
However, the real reason I'm reluctant to do stuff like this
is that my usual preference is not to spend more time to raise
a barrier than it would take someone else to lower it. If I
do something to "get ahead", and someone else counters it, so
that we're even again, we've both wasted that much time on
useless competition, as opposed to some other kind of
competition which might produce something valuable. :)
> Or don't worry; if most people don't do it, the spam bots wont worry
> about
> it. It's not worth the effort to code up.
>
> Actually, the path less travelled is littered with little benefits like
> that.
Actually, as I mentioned in the part you snipped, I no longer have
a spam problem. It's solved, as far as I'm concerned, and if
everyone implements similar solutions, it will be mostly solved
for everyone. The only way for the spammers to get around it,
as far as I can see, would be to make the spam something I really
want to see.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "When you advocate any government action, you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand." -- Allen Thornton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 09 2003 - 04:31:04 MDT