Re: Modern best practice for putting a contact email on the web
On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 20:36:39 +0100
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:49:15 -0400
> Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Apr 2021 14:12:07 -0400
> > Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Celejar wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > What's the recommended modern best practice for putting a contact
> > > > email address on the web while avoiding having it scraped by spam
> > > > / fraud bots?
> > >
> > > Assume that every address will be hit by spammers and scammers.
> > > Put in appropriate antispam and antimalware precautions.
> >
> > Okay, but why isn't trying to limit spammers getting hold of an
> > address a logical part of a defense in depth strategy?
>
> It is, but if you are reachable then a human can enter your address on
Yes, but humans don't scale the way bots do ;)
> a list. Or, as you suggest, OCR will eventually find it.
> >
> > > Train your people to recognize spam and scams.
> >
> > I'm talking about a small hobby project that I run in my spare time. I
> > just want to reduce spam to an address that I may put up to allow
> > people to reach me.
> >
> >
> Unfortunately, there's nothing to beat running your own mail server,
> which is not particularly high-maintenance after setup. The address at
> the top of this email was created nearly 23 years ago, and has been used
> widely around the Net, including several Usenet groups. I get between
> one and four spams a day in my inbox. As it happens, I put a new CIDR
> group on my blacklist today, for the first time in perhaps a year.
I've certainly been tempted for a while. And I suppose that receiving
is less problematic then sending, where one apparently has to manage
reputation, worry about past users of an IP address, monitor
blacklists, etc.
> The next best method is a new free mailbox, with collection piped
> through the anti-spam software of your choice. But I tried spamassassin
> some years ago, and decided I couldn't spare the time that staying
> ahead in the arms race was costing me. Maybe the maintainers have made
> better algorithms since then.
Celejar
Reply to: