Suggestions for must-dos in Australia - East coast and Northern Territory

On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

How then *can* one munge and still be a good Netizen? By adding
".invalid" to the end of the munged address (see for example my "From:"
address). "invalid" is not just some word, but a *standardized* [1]
top-level domain (TLD) name which is *guaranteed* to never exist.

And once it is *guaranteed* to never exist, the spambots can take tis
into account and correct accordingly.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
clever/obtuse than "nospam".

Nothing wrong with the new address (apart from how his news reader
interprets it as far as replies to previous psosts go). Still a HUGE
amount of conventional wisdom to go with me rather than your advice,
Frank.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Dave Proctor wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

How then *can* one munge and still be a good Netizen? By adding
".invalid" to the end of the munged address (see for example my "From:"
address). "invalid" is not just some word, but a *standardized* [1]
top-level domain (TLD) name which is *guaranteed* to never exist.

And once it is *guaranteed* to never exist, the spambots can take tis
into account and correct accordingly.

That is why, as I said in the part which you snipped, one has to be
clever/obtuse with the "nospam" (or in your case "spambait" and
"remove") part. I.e. it is not either-or, but and. I.e. you have to
munge in a clever/obtuse way *and* add ".invalid" at the end. The
clever/obtuse munge is *against* the address-harvesters/spammers. The
".invalid" part is *for* The Good Guys (tm), Good Netkeeping, etc.. I
hope it is clearer now.

Dave Proctor wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
clever/obtuse than "nospam".

Nothing wrong with the new address (apart from how his news reader
interprets it as far as replies to previous psosts go). Still a HUGE
amount of conventional wisdom to go with me rather than your advice,
Frank.

Well, his new address, , abuses the com.au
domain. That domain is not his/yours/mine. Simple as that. You may not
*care* about this abuse, but that doesn't mean that is *isn't* abuse.

In case it wasn't clear what I meant: With ,
whether without or without ".invalid" at the end, it is trivial for the
address-harvesters/spammers to remove the "nospam" (and ".invalid" if
present) and come up with the real address. I.e. "nospam" offers hardly
any protection, because it is too easy to 'guess'. Hence my remark about
using something more clever/obtuse.

As to "conventional wisdom" versus "your advice" (i.e. 'mine'): Please
be so kind as to explain *why* your "conventional wisdom" is better than
'my' advice c.q. what is wrong with 'my' advice. 'My' advice is the
advice of the News Admins of the world, of which I have been one for
over two decades.

By coincidence i received an email fromOzemail yesterday informing that they
will soon be offering free anti-spam and email anti-virus protection to my
inbox.


"Frank Slootweg" wrote in message
...
Dave Proctor wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005 15:43:50 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Note however that address-harvesters, i.e. the people who gather
addresses which spammers use, are aware of the "nospam" trick (and the
".invalid" standard), so you might want to come up with something more
clever/obtuse than "nospam".

Nothing wrong with the new address (apart from how his news reader
interprets it as far as replies to previous psosts go). Still a HUGE
amount of conventional wisdom to go with me rather than your advice,
Frank.

Well, his new address, , abuses the com.au
domain. That domain is not his/yours/mine. Simple as that. You may not
*care* about this abuse, but that doesn't mean that is *isn't* abuse.

In case it wasn't clear what I meant: With ,
whether without or without ".invalid" at the end, it is trivial for the
address-harvesters/spammers to remove the "nospam" (and ".invalid" if
present) and come up with the real address. I.e. "nospam" offers hardly
any protection, because it is too easy to 'guess'. Hence my remark about
using something more clever/obtuse.

As to "conventional wisdom" versus "your advice" (i.e. 'mine'): Please
be so kind as to explain *why* your "conventional wisdom" is better than
'my' advice c.q. what is wrong with 'my' advice. 'My' advice is the
advice of the News Admins of the world, of which I have been one for
over two decades.