From: "A. Sinan Unur" 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: <34D0AF0D DOT 3152A45B AT alcyone DOT com> Reply-To: sinan DOT unur AT cornell DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Host: 128 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk 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