Subject:
|
Re: Virus Email
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 May 2003 23:08:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1261 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, John Radtke writes:
> In lugnet.general, Dan Mattia writes:
> > They're not clickable. That means the spammer would have to type it in. I
> > try to warn people and I get arrogant people to post.
> >
> > ~Dan
> > >
> > > And by posting them here they are sure to be harvested again for spam.
> > >
> > > -Rob.
>
> Take a pill. I'm not up on spam technology but I would be very surprised if
> clickable had much to do with it. Harvesting addresses would hardly be
> profitable if a person literally had to take the time to click on each one.
> One could imagine there are programs that grab any clear text, properly
> formatted, email address. If human intervention and interpretation was
> involved then NOSPAM inserts wouldn't work. Better to play it safe than
> sorry. Especially when you are posting a public message containing
> information about other people that will be available far into the future.
Indeed. Were I you, Dan, I'd drop a note to admin@lugnet.com with the url of
your original post, asking that it be canceled.
Todd's worked hard to make spam harvesting harder here, Dan. The people
trying to point that out, and suggest that you posting email address may not
have been a good idea, to you Dan are not being arrogant, they're being helpful.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Virus Email
|
| (...) Take a pill. I'm not up on spam technology but I would be very surprised if clickable had much to do with it. Harvesting addresses would hardly be profitable if a person literally had to take the time to click on each one. One could imagine (...) (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
