Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But it makes mailing list archives harder to use for genuine users - > for those times when you find someone who had the same problem in > the past - but never got an answer - do you really wan to dig around > for passwords on a strange site just to find out the address is > dead, or no answer was found?
In the majority of cases, real e-mail addresses are not necessary to understand messages in the archives. For those times when you really do need to see what the real ones are, you can still view the original text. You don't have to dig around for the password; the popup dialog box tells you what to use. I also debated simply password protected the entire archive leaving the addresses unobfuscated. The downside there is that the content then cannot be archived by Google and other valuable search engines. > Resource consumption is an interesting one but it needs to be a "lot > of spam" to be take any noticable resource cost, versus time from my > life. There are arguments on both sides, but I opted for a middleground that I think doesn't harm the usefulness of the archive, but at the same time makes it difficult for computer programs to harvest e-mail addresses. > Indeed should people with effective antispam solutions encourage > spammers to waste their available resources spamming ineffectively? > As this undermines the spammers economic model. No, I don't think so. Unless you are rejecting spam at the SMTP level, the spammer will never know they are spamming ineffectively. This applies to most popular methods including TMDA, SpamAssassin, and other content filters. _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
