Daylight Running Lights

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 18:02:44 +0000 (UTC), Doc O'Leary
wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
John B. Slocomb wrote:

I'm probably paranoid but I get reams of spam and I'm trying to
eliminate some of it, or at least reduce the volume, and I'm convinced
that a certain amount comes from scanned Usenet messages.

A bit off topic, but you’re right. I use specific tracking addresses to
combat abuse, so know for a fact that Usenet is still a source. However,
it is likely a drop in the bucket compared to other places that might
compromise your address. Which is to say, it sometimes takes *months*
before an address I use here gets picked up by a spammer, and the result
is barely a trickle (e.g., 1 spam/week) for however long it is before I
get fed up and expire the address.

The real problem you’re going to have is with an “old” address that you
never change. Over time, it gets passed around and added to more and
more lists that more and more spammers use. If you want better control
of a “published” email, consider trying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Address_tags

I essentially use an extreme form of that which allows me to keep the
message from even leaving the spammer’s server.

I think I may switch to your method and just use something like
that is obviously not a proper address and
probably any reasonably rational user will know to ask for an address.
--
cheers,

John B.Slocomb

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 08:06:39 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/14 22:16, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:33:20 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/14 13:17, John D. Slocomb wrote:

Fake address = attempt to limit spam. Try



'b' or 'd'?

"b", the Signature is incorrect.

I'm probably paranoid but I get reams of spam and I'm trying to
eliminate some of it, or at least reduce the volume, and I'm convinced
that a certain amount comes from scanned Usenet messages.

I've changed the Signature block here and I'll if it results in any
added offers for good things like free loans, or maybe a guy in
Nigeria offering me a hundred million to help him get his money out of
the country.

Interesting. You can see my email addr. Not hidden. Thunderbird and
Google seem to get rid of 90% of the spam. Results in me emptying the
spam folder once a day, of about 3-5 emails.

I seem to get a different mix. If I get one message from someone I
want to hear from I'll also get four or five from people or places I
don't want to hear from. And Google is trashing even more.

I even got one from a site with an address of something like
that had the message, "Reply as soon as possible".
--
cheers,

John B.Slocomb

For your reference, records indicate that
John B. Slocomb wrote:

I think I may switch to your method and just use something like
that is obviously not a proper address and
probably any reasonably rational user will know to ask for an address.

The common convention is to append .invalid if you intentionally use a
bad address. I still say it’s more interesting to use a valid address
everywhere and gather data on which services are actually selling you
out to spammers. It’s one of the ways, for example, I was able to
discover that my account information at TD Ameritrade was compromised
a number of years back. Usenet might not be quite so important, but
it is still enlightening to discover details of how spammers are
finding their victims. Similarly, I did another experiment a while
ago to determine how big a factor web spidering still was:

http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/57

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly