On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:35 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Rich Kulawiec writes:
Pretending that address obfuscation in mailing list [or newsgroup]
archives will have any meaningful effect on this process gives
users a false sense of security and has zero anti-spam value.
You're missing the
--On 24 August 2009 13:15:03 -0500 Hopkins, Justin
hopkin...@umsystem.edu wrote:
Thanks for such a detailed and compelling post..but I must disagree. I
can't refute any of the arguments you made, they are all quite sound, but
I do take issue with your conclusion.
Obfuscating the email
Barry Warsaw writes:
2) is more interesting. What kinds of uses are we talking about? You
see a message in an archive from three years ago and you want to
contact the OP about it? Why not just follow up and contact the
mailing list?
For all the reasons why Reply-To Munging
Ian Quite right. Rich's argument is, essentially, that obfuscation
Ian isn't 100% effective so it shouldn't be used. Frankly, if it's 10%
Ian effective, then it's worth doing in my view.
I would be quite surprised if address obfuscation is anywhere close to 10%
effective. Maybe
You are presuming too much on spammers as a whole. I've dealt with a couple
spammers, and they just used some tools they got online that search for
usern...@domain.something. Everything else is ignored.
I don't for a minute doubt that the advanced spammers will snag anything and
everything no
Bob Puff wrote:
You are presuming too much on spammers as a whole. I've dealt with a
couple spammers, and they just used some tools they got online that
search for usern...@domain.something. Everything else is ignored.
I don't for a minute doubt that the advanced spammers will snag
