xyzzy1@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > No, this is NOT true. If you look closely at the postings, you see any "@" > characters substituted with "at" and perhaps the "." by "dot". That makes an > automatic harvester's job much much harder since there are no special > characters to find that signify an email address. > > Unless the harvester knows the exact format of each archive posting and where > exactly the email address was, it would be pointless to try to harvest from How many commonly used mailing list programs do you think there are? I bet only a few, each of which has it's own standard format for archives. Also, you may have noticed that Pipermail puts your email address into a 'mailto'. Yes, the @ gets replaced by ' at ', but if I were a spammer, this would be exactly the kind of obfuscation I would look for. > the archives that I have seen because the spammer's list would be peppered > with bogus addresses. Do you really think a spammer cares how much bogus adresses he has to try as long as he knows there are some valid ones among them? Daniel _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
