-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 20 March 2008 01:11:45 am L. Rahyen wrote: > > > > Address munging is considered harmful. It's the postmaster's > > responsibility not to accept spam in the first place. > > http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/ > > I disagree with this article. I lost enough mail addresses in the past > when tried to use them "as is" without paying attention on how well they > munged in the archives or public web-pages; when I started to use my new > address only in limited number of "trusted" public places (and always check > how well it is munged in these "trusted" public places) the problem was > "magically" solved. There's no such thing as losing an email address to spammers, unless you're doing something truly stupid like using easy passwords so they can hijack your account. There's plenty of tools to deal with the spam problem the right way, there's really no legitimate excuse to deal with it the lazy, ineffectual way. > To me it seems that author of that article simply don't > imagine what does it mean to receive dozens/hundreds of spam messages per > day. And there is no alternative solution(s) of any kind in the article, > really. Author just dislikes something (address munging), blame spammers > and some users and that's all. Because there's a myriad of possible solutions, everything from choosing a better email provider to hosting it yourself and rejecting spam at SMTP-time. Many of us /do/ get that much spam, and don't appreciate the whining over what is normally a reasonable expectation out of a mailing list. - -- Paul Johnson baloo@xxxxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4nrEUCxPKZafKh0RAsumAKCYwNXQ4tLZzv2Nvo8hJD4gsesP/ACghU4J g4+EZE6AVrA62pbRFFw/Hks= =asRI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
