on 5/22/02 10:04 AM, Steve Linford at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Mightn't it be better to have common but unused names instead?
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = spamtrap
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = spamtrap
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = spamtrap
>>>
>>> SIMS will answer "250 OK" for these spamtraps
>>
>> But only if the dictionary attack actually gets around to
>> "frodo123", right? It seems to me that more common names are more
>> likely to be harvested.
>
> Ahh... you are of course correct. I was using the convention I use
> for spamtraps on my web sites where crawlers can harvest them. Of
> course for dictionary attacks you need plain tom, dick, harry, etc.
You know there is an "ironic beauty" to this as now the harvesters are
actually building a stronger and more effective spam blocking system with
each address they harvest. This somewhat leapfrogs the need the put spamtrap
addresses on webpages.
Sublime. . .
Michael Heth
Web Information Architect
__________________S E R V E R S M I T H S__________________
http://www.serversmiths.com/
Technology Infrastructure Provider
I N T E R N E T P R E S E N C E S O L U T I O N S
| EWordSmith | LightningSite | Enigma.Engine |
________M A R I N C O U N T Y C A L I F O R N I A________
#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
