 | | Re: Has MOCPages been harvested for spam?
|
|
(...) The address shown for me is : <lar(at@at)miltontra...t.dot)com> (that is, it's been mangled, if you "view raw message" for THIS post you'll see what I mean) Todd put in a way for you to force-mangle your addresses. Not perfect since the coding (...) (19 years ago, 16-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Has MOCPages been harvested for spam?
|
|
(...) But if you subscribe via email, the from is unmangled. So a smammer would just have to subscribe for a while and collect all the "from" addressed (the reply-to is set to the mailing list, however) and bingo - has a nice big list of valid (...) (19 years ago, 17-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Has MOCPages been harvested for spam?
|
|
(...) Shhhh, Quite you. Derek (19 years ago, 17-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Has MOCPages been harvested for spam?
|
|
(...) Well bother. Shows what I know, I haven't subscribed to LUGNET via email (or used a newsreader to read it, for that matter) since forever. Never mind then, I guess. XFut admin.general, this issue affects more than just this group. (19 years ago, 17-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Has MOCPages been harvested for spam?
|
|
(...) A spammer that goes to that muvh trouble to get our addresses cannot be blocked by automatic tools. All spamblocks are designed to protect against generic spam bots, not humans or custom written bots. (19 years ago, 17-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
| |
| | Re: Has MOCPages been harvested for spam?
|
|
(...) Dan- Not complaining, just observing :) I'm just surprised that if the effort was made to munge the web display of email addresses, no such effort was made in the email portion... You just can't win against spammers. For example, When I hit (...) (19 years ago, 17-Nov-05, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto)
|
