Wazoo Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Then making JohnsmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com your real email address might be a good idea! When a spammer strips out the NOSPAM, The email won't get sent to you But if johnsmith <at> aol ever figures out that you're behind his sudden increase in his spam load ....<g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanDavid Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Then making JohnsmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com your real email address might be a good idea! When a spammer strips out the NOSPAM, The email won't get sent to you But if johnsmith <at> aol ever figures out that you're behind his sudden increase in his spam load ....<g> Gee whiz, I didn't think to check if there really was a JohnSmith <at> aol.com How about we use an example that couldn't possibly trouble anyone. Maybe we should use ScottRichterNOSPAM422[at]Yahoo.com as an example, instead of JohnSmithNOSPAM[at]aol.com Or maybe Scott_NO_HIGH_VOLUME_EMAIL_DEPLOYMENT_Richter422[at]yahoo.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Gee whiz, I didn't think to check if there really was a JohnSmith <at> aol.com With the millions of 5.25" and 3.5" floppies sent out over the years, the ton loads of CD's snail-mailed out and also found in stores and shops around the world, and a half-dozen sub-accounts allowed under each master account ... somewhere, there has to be that one John Smith that was just amazed that "his name" hadn't been taken yet, jumping for joy at how kewl this was in that everyone will know exactly who I am .... just not a clue that the previous thousand plus John Smiths had long since walked away from that particular string of text .... Now using a specific Mr. Scotty's address .. well, that would just be "wrong" <g> I seem to recall that he's stated that he's never opted-in for anything <g> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvey Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I hope spamcop traps do not ignore bounces or only ignores bounces that are in a recognized, well-defined format (specific MDN/DSN, 2821.MAIL FROM <> WITH appropriate stuff in the body. (e.g not just from postmaster[at] Or we'll get lots of spam 'from' postmaster[at].. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WB8TYW Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 A moderator might want to start a new topic of munging. How about we use an example that couldn't possibly trouble anyone. It would have to be an address that could not possibly exist, either one of the reserved top level domains like example.com, or a non-existant top level domain. Using someone else's address, no matter how much you think they deserve the spam is probably a violation of either your ISP's terms of service or their upstream. Alternatively some domains have given out some e-mail addresses that either black hole or reject all e-mail for use by their clients or the general public. And keep this in mind, when you mung as myname[at]remove.example.com, the mail goes to example.com and should get rejected, but it still hits the network. If you used myname[at]example.complex the spam can not leave the sending network. Of course, if you may see that type of spam show up in a CC: list, especially if you have a network with out good spam protection. I only mung my e-mail address newsgroup posts on news servers that allow the practice. As my public e-mail addresses are well harvested, they are already probably on every spam list out there, and there is no need to protect them more. Instead the idea is to waste space in a spammers database, and a secondary effect is that confounds viruses. And I do not send e-mail with a munged address ever. If a message is undeliverable, I could not get notified by the local mail server generating a bounce. And also I have found that some mail clients can not deal with easily editing the e-mail address people are replying to. They require that the entire e-mail address being replaced. And it is extremely annoying to get a bounce because I missed an munging code. -John wb8tyw[at]qsl.network Personal Opinion Only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agsteele Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Using someone else's address, no matter how much you think they deserve the spam is probably a violation of either your ISP's terms of service or their upstream. And in some countries it would probably be illegal too Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.