🚀 go-pugleaf

> Kevin, I loathe spammers, but if I were designing spamming software
> (harvesting sigs section) one of the first things I would do is program
> it to search for [space]at[space] and replace it with "@", and search
> for [space]dot[space] and replace it with "." - and the few obvious
> variations on this mungeing. With that simple algorithm, your real sig
> would automatically end up ready and waiting for the spammers.
> 
> I would be extremely surprised if they don't already do it. What do you
> think?

Been there, done that. What, you thiink I didn't think this through before
deciding to "munge" my e-mail address? Believe me, I did....I used to be
one of the "don't do that" folks until it got too out of hand (which for
me, took about six months).

*shrug*

*BUT*, I don't think they are "into" searching message bodies yet....I
could be wrong. If I were a SPAMer, I'd get the most bang for my buck just
scanning headers.

> PS I think if you're gonna munge, you better get more sophisticated
> while keeping it simple for people to email you if they need to. Much as
> I hate to say this, I find the delete key is the most efficient way to
> deal with the sods while ensuring that I don't accidentally trash
> genuine email.

That's why I compromise with the munge I have. Anything more complicated
may just as well make it impossible for legitimate people to reply, for
all intents and purposes. Of course, I may just start leaving off the
reply-to altogether (header *or* sig) if it gets *that* bad.


kevin at quosig dot com

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
 Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."