[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Julian Hall wrote: > > Please note I am not laying blame *anywhere*, simply asking a question. Looks like you also used it with SWLUG in 2004, whose munging scheme has probably been automated by the harvesters i.e. "name at domainname". Or could have been harvested from a compromised machine as suggested. I've told many folk obscuring email addresses is almost pointless, just makes it harder for the good guys to email you. It'll leak to the bad guys eventually almost whatever you do. Me I'd unmunge the list addresses, as it makes the archive less useful, but I wouldn't enforce it on anyone. But a lot depends what else you do with the spam. If your mail client fetches linked images, or you click on links, or unsubscribe, they will know the address is both deliverable and email is opened, which makes it more attractive. The standard advice on not unsubscribing from spam is not I think based on any statistical evidence. One for someone to study when bored one day. My experience is sometimes it works and sometimes it makes it worse. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html