-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| --> Tuesday, February 3, 2004, 12:44:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | |>On 2004-02-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] penned: |> |>>Dated addresses were something that caught my eye first of all, but |>>now I find they are secondary to others in my scheme. |>> |>>I feel I need more information on their suggested lifetime in order to |>>incorporate them as best as possible into my system. |>> | | |>This is highly dependent on where you use the dated address. | | |>If you use it on usenet (newsgroups) or mailing lists with web archives, |>expect it to be compromised more or less immediately. | | | Yes of course, bad wording on my part. I am talking about the turnaround | time between compromise and receipt of spam. I understand that the address | itself is generally harvested more or less immediately. | | Additionally, to clarify, I am referring to use in broad public forums. | | I imagine, out of thin air, that 1 to 3 days might work. But really, I | don't know. Is 3 days too much, I don't know. I assume a week is. Maybe | people have already experienced immediate spam on addresses with a one | day lifetime. I think that is the primary possibility I worry about. | | What are your experiences with various dated address lifetimes?
I use a dated reply-to instead, pretty much solves that whole problem.
- -- Chris Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator JM Associates & Coast Business Service
"Some days you fix the multi-million dollar machine, other days the $12 stapler kicks your ass." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAH/lokAS13ByzgbsRAgjoAJ4wH+InVINoLoAYztKbBuEOaX74tgCggsvP RoWTgdwSycSZOOndiM4BRxs= =6Ejl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
