End user implementation of spamtrap

[kda406]

I know one of SpamCop's spamtrap addresses. I would like to use it hidden within the HTML content on my web site to catch and list spam spiders. I am trying to find out if they mind me embedding one of their traps in my pages. But I couldn't find any way to directly contact them. Does anybody know if they are okay with this? I would think they would actually encourage this, but I'd like permission.

Similarly, if I do implement this little trick, how can I tell if a spamtrap address has been decommisioned? It's not like I can try the address myself to see if it still works. I understand why they hide these addresses, but it would be great if I could at least find out when an old one has been retired.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

-Kyle

[dbiel]

Heres is the contact

deputies <at> spamcop.net

[Wazoo]

Just a generic answer .... in the realm of SpamCop, the word "spamtrap" is dealing with an e-mail address offered up in such a fashion that the only place it would normally be picked up is by the use of a crawler. The address is generated, planted, and handled in a fashion that it is "known" that this specific address has never appeared anywhere eles in the world, never been used anywhere, etc. By offering up some kind of blanket approval for someone else in the world to "do what they will" with one of these addresses kind of changes the definition of a SpamCop spamtrap, as the "known history" of that address would then lose the accountibility aspect of its use.

On the other hand, it is rather apparent that some spammers are using these same addresses intentionaly, in order to convince the world that the use of the SpamCopDNSbl is a bad thing. This also tends to feed into that a spamtrap these days is not a constant entity.

Repeat, just a generic thought set from one who does not control the SpamCop realm <g>

[kda406]

Just a generic answer .... in the realm of SpamCop, the word "spamtrap" is dealing with an e-mail address offered up in such a fashion that the only place it would normally be picked up is by the use of a crawler.

That is exactly what I am trying to do too. I hear what you are saying, but I feel that any crawler that is specifically checking for e-mail addresses on my sites is just as worthy of being on a black list as one that crawls their and their associates sites.

Actually what I am proposing might help greatly with this type of spam source. Any thinking spammer (is there such a thing?) that was going to unleash this kind of e-mail address scanning spider would surely avoid sites associated with SpamCop. Therefore, setting spamtraps on "average" sites around the Internet would help to put spammers into the black lists more quickly and effectively than relying on recipients to turn the spammers in. As the spammers share/merge/exchange their lists the spamtraps would propagate even more quickly if "average" sites were setting these traps too. $0.02

-Kyle

[turetzsr]

Just a generic answer .... in the realm of SpamCop, the word "spamtrap" is dealing with an e-mail address offered up in such a fashion that the only place it would normally be picked up is by the use of a crawler.

18497[/snapback]

That is exactly what I am trying to do too. I hear what you are saying

18513[/snapback]

...Hmm ... doesn't look like it, to me. Your:

I feel that any crawler that is specifically checking for e-mail addresses on my sites [emphasis Steve T, not Kyle]

18513[/snapback]

contradicts:

The address is generated, planted, and handled in a fashion that it is "known" that this specific address has never appeared anywhere eles in the world, never been used anywhere, etc. [emphasis Steve T, not Wazoo]  By offering up some kind of blanket approval for someone else in the world to "do what they will" with one of these addresses kind of changes the definition of a SpamCop spamtrap, as the "known history" of that address would then lose the accountibility aspect of its use.

<snip>

18497[/snapback]