On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 13:03:36 BST, Alex Hunsley writes: >What's obnoxious about it? I don't want spam, dad. It's that simple. Almost nobody wants spam. It's that simple. But such is life. I also don't want advertising in my physical mailbox (and yes, this also costs the recipient money. My house, for example, could do without the second paper-container, which costs approx. $400/ year, would they cut down on sending those fscking brochures). >Also, I was having a discussion on usenet recently on this very subject >- the capabilities of spam bots - and I was advising people that address >trawlers probably by now could see past things like a capital words like >BLOCK or REMOVE in an address. Many people wrote back saying "I use the >word REMOVE in my address all the time and have yet to receive spam", so >anecdotally, most trawlers aren't that good yet. (Although it wouldn't >be hard to make them that good). Of course it would be easy to make such bots a little bit more intelligent. But why bother? Also, most spammers probably don't target people who already have formed an opinion against it, their main targets are AOL- & -newbies, anyway. If you believe in using fake addresses, why not use something like lard@uk.ed.ac.tardis? This doesn't (and probably won't) exist, so you have the benefit of a faked address but don't simply shove the load unto someone else. As for addresses: the *best* option IMHO are expiring hostnames, eg waldner@20011003.waldner.priv.at. cheers, &rw -- -- AOL would be a giant diesel-smoking bus with hundreds -- of ebola victims on board throwing dead wombats and -- rotten cabbage at the other cars. -- ASR about "Information Superhighway" analogy
Attachment:
pgpuYqv7_d2FR.pgp
Description: PGP signature