From:	"A. Sinan Unur" <sinan DOT unur AT cornell DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	ant-spammed e-mail addresses (was Re: TC++ syntax?)
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:46:17 -0600
Organization:	Cornell University
Lines:	23
Sender:	asu1 AT cornell DOT edu (Verified)
Message-ID:	<34D0DC89.497A@cornell.edu>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980129111952 DOT 6822O-100000 AT is> <34D0AF0D DOT 3152A45B AT alcyone DOT com>
Reply-To:	sinan DOT unur AT cornell DOT edu
NNTP-Posting-Host:	128
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Or, that preventative measures are not as effective as responsive
> measures (e.g., just filter out the spam), or that so-called 
> "despammed" email addresses are not as effective as one might think.

agreed. munging/despamming addresses may sometimes work but so long as
the information is actually contained somewhere in your message in some
form, it is accessible to a pattern-matching type of program. further,
that does not solve the real cost imposed on the underlying networks by
the spammers. the only solution is to go after the spammers via their
ISPs (hoping that they will take it seriously. most do.)

you can read a how-to by andrew bulhal written for this purpose at
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/asu1/anti-spam-howto.html

OTOH, it is perfectly understandable for people not to want to receive
e-mail replies to ng postings. i do not have strong feelings one way or
the other, and i appreciate the e-mail responses i get, but my policy is
not to cc public replies to e-mail. that completely avoids the
munged/despammed e-mail addresses.

  -- Sinan

- Raw text -