SPAM and archives (Was: Re: [plug] PHP question..)

[Bill Kenworthy]

I have to ask, why bother? Isnt "NULL" a lot safer.  What advantages are
there that outweigh anonymity to have a possibly decypherable email
address at all on a public list?

Also, once these go into the archives, and whatever particular method
used becomes popular so spammers decide to auto decypher (I am sure it
will come about as soon as a method gets even slightly popular), these
email addresses are again exposed.

I would suggest removing addresses altogether from the archives, and
maybe from the live list as well.

BillK

On Fri, 2003-07-04 at 12:55, James Devenish wrote:
> In message <20030704042027.GB18801 at spark.plug.linux.org.au>
> on Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 12:20:28PM +0800, Tony Breeds wrote:
> > At the moment it's basic as all it does is s/@/_at_/  WHen I move the
> 
> If the address is to be displayed in a human-readable form, could you do
> something more obscure, like 'goober from cantech'? (surely
> harvesters will soon realise what _at_ stands for).
> 
> > goober at cantech.net.au =>
> > #103;#111;#111;#98;#101;#114;#64;#99;#97;#110;#116;#101;#99;#104;#46;#110;#101;#116;#46;#97;#117;
> > 
> > Which I understand email harvesters don't like.
> 
> (1) I would have thought such as idea would have been based on HTML
> character codes or URL encoding. The above example seems to be a blend
> on the two and is technically neither. Most humans would get no value
> from the above.
> 
> (2) If you actually meant to use one of the above-mentioned encoding,
> surely that will be utterly ineffective when spammers start using a
> stock standard HTML parsers to build their harvesters -- the encoding
> won't make a difference.
> 
> 
-- 
Bill Kenworthy <billk at iinet.net.au>