wow! didn't know it was so easy! Although I think this is the right
group. IE privacy
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:58:04 GMT, darren sanborn
<sandmansdream4u@insightbb.com> wrote:
>OK I am a newbie, so clue me in. How do you get one of those e-mail
>address all you guys use?
"Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:Xns93D550DC51935juergennieveler@nieveler-43544.user.cis.dfn.de...
> darren sanborn <sandmansdream4u@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > wow! didn't know it was so easy! Although I think this is the right
> > group. IE privacy
>
> Of course, you should be advised that there are 2 serious downsides to
> using fake email adresses:
>
> 1) Anybody trying to send you information to questions you asked via
> mail will only try once - and fail
>
> 2) Faked email addresses are used a lot by trolls, which is why many
> people killfile obviously faked from-addresses, following the line
> "Nobody without a real name and reply-address has anything interesting
> to say".
>
On the other hand, your real email address will not be posted all over
Google and every other site that happens to archive a USENET message or
three, thus will be unavailable to spam-bots that roam the net collecting
email addresses they come across.
Which means that your in-box (as long as you don't give out your real email
injudiciously) will remain remarkably spam free. My home email address, for
example, has remained spam free for more than 3 years now. No penile
enlargements, breast enhancements, viagra. mortgage loans or credit cards.
1 letter from "Nigeria" every 3 weeks or so.
So if a couple of jerks don't want to talk to me because I don't post my
real email, to heck with them. Don't know them & likely don't care to.
"mto" <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.com> wrote in
news:qdidnVj4jMqNIaWiXTWJhg@seg.net:
> <snipped>
> So if a couple of jerks don't want to talk to me because I don't post
> my real email, to heck with them. Don't know them & likely don't care
> to.
>
>
>
On the other hand, I use a real Hotmail box. This is simply an address I
use for newsgroup replies - if people want to use it. As it has automatic
spam and junk mail facilities, and is not my primary mailbox, that's fine.
And the upside is that from time to time I actually get nice, friendly mail
from people I've met on the newsgroups.
Be kind to people - they are not all jerks! although I agree, there are a
few ;-)
"Robin T Cox" <robin2803@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FL3_a.10621$yl6.7796@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> "mto" <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.com> wrote in
> news:qdidnVj4jMqNIaWiXTWJhg@seg.net:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > So if a couple of jerks don't want to talk to me because I don't post
> > my real email, to heck with them. Don't know them & likely don't care
> > to.
> >
> >
> >
>
> On the other hand, I use a real Hotmail box. This is simply an address I
> use for newsgroup replies - if people want to use it. As it has automatic
> spam and junk mail facilities, and is not my primary mailbox, that's fine.
> And the upside is that from time to time I actually get nice, friendly
> from people I've met on the newsgroups.
>
> Be kind to people - they are not all jerks! although I agree, there are a
> few ;-)
I wasn't calling everyone a jerk - met many a wonderful person on Usenet
over the years. Every single person I have ever known that **insisted**
that one post one's real name/details/ etc., however, was a jerk - and I am
being kind thereI've seen more than one person tracked down, outted and
even stalked for nothing more than attempting to maintain their privacy - a
longstanding Usenet tradition.
My last experience with both Hotmail and Yahoo was not as good as your's
seems to be. Spam filters that didn't work, huge amounts of junk mail, ads
everywhere and you almost have to keep Microsoft Messenger enabled on XP in
order to log in. [I HATE Messenger.] After a bit I simply got to the point
that I really just couldn't be bothered to check in to Hotmail even once a
month in order to wade through a virtual mountain of junk for what might be
one little message of importance.
mto wrote:
>
> "Juergen Nieveler" <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:Xns93D550DC51935juergennieveler@nieveler-43544.user.cis.dfn.de...
> > darren sanborn <sandmansdream4u@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > wow! didn't know it was so easy! Although I think this is the right
> > > group. IE privacy
> >
> > Of course, you should be advised that there are 2 serious downsides to
> > using fake email adresses:
> >
> > 1) Anybody trying to send you information to questions you asked via
> > mail will only try once - and fail
> >
> > 2) Faked email addresses are used a lot by trolls, which is why many
> > people killfile obviously faked from-addresses, following the line
> > "Nobody without a real name and reply-address has anything interesting
> > to say".
> >
>
> On the other hand, your real email address will not be posted all over
> Google and every other site that happens to archive a USENET message or
> three, thus will be unavailable to spam-bots that roam the net collecting
> email addresses they come across.
>
> Which means that your in-box (as long as you don't give out your real email
> injudiciously) will remain remarkably spam free. My home email address, for
> example, has remained spam free for more than 3 years now. No penile
> enlargements, breast enhancements, viagra. mortgage loans or credit cards.
> 1 letter from "Nigeria" every 3 weeks or so.
>
> So if a couple of jerks don't want to talk to me because I don't post my
> real email, to heck with them. Don't know them & likely don't care to.
I agree!
--
~much respect,
Igor
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ Email ........................... gutman[at]videotron[dot]ca ¦
¦ ICQ (same as my home phone#) ....................... 3696934 ¦
¦ WWW ............................ http://KpoT.doesntexist.com ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
šššš
šššš
x-no-archive: yes
"BoB" <rhoward30@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:023ijvohcobhe0tinsvjctu252gttvan5u@4ax.com...
> On 12 Aug 2003 06:05:44 GMT, Juergen Nieveler
> <juergen.nieveler.nospam@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> >darren sanborn <sandmansdream4u@insightbb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> wow! didn't know it was so easy! Although I think this is the right
> >> group. IE privacy
> >
> >Of course, you should be advised that there are 2 serious downsides to
> >using fake email adresses:
> >
> >1) Anybody trying to send you information to questions you asked via
> >mail will only try once - and fail
> >
> >2) Faked email addresses are used a lot by trolls, which is why many
> >people killfile obviously faked from-addresses, following the line
> >"Nobody without a real name and reply-address has anything interesting
> >to say".
>
> 3) Faked email addresses waste bandwidth while they go
> bouncing around the internet. Adding .invalid to the end
> of whatever choose will prevent this waste of internet
> bandwidth as the first server it hits will kill it.
>
> Here's some leads offered in the past year.
>
> http://www.online.ie/
> http://www.alixoft.com/
> http://mailandnews.com/
> http://www.gmx.net
> http://www.spamgourmet.com
> http://www.sneakemail.com/
> http://www.myrealbox.com/
>
> As you can see from my return, I am using the last one.
> It died late last week however, and so far I cannot get
> a clue WTF is happening at Novell, the sponsor.
>
> BoB
>
I use myrealbox, just sent myself an email and it came through without any
problems.
Jbob wrote:
>
> One thing you can do with a Hotmail or Yahoo account is also to "munge"(I
> guess that's the correct term) your actual Hotmail or Yahoo email address.
> For instance if your Hotmail address is xyz@hotmail.com use instead a
> variation of that so the Bots can't harvest your real email address but make
> it easy enough for a possible responder to reply via this hotmail account.
> Possible variations are:
> xyz@h@tmail.com or xyz at hotmail dot com or something criptic but still
> readable by a human. There are some RFC's that specifically tell how to do
> this although I'm not sure I agree.
does anyone have the URL(s) of these particular RFC(s)?
--
~much respect,
Igor
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ Email ........................... gutman[at]videotron[dot]ca ¦
¦ ICQ (same as my home phone#) ....................... 3696934 ¦
¦ WWW ............................ http://KpoT.doesntexist.com ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
šššš
šššš
I've never read any either but keep getting reminded by John Navas about it.
Google seems to be down at the moment. Type in RFC(or munging) in any
search engine and look for RFC-822 or 1123. I think these are the main
ones. I think these RFC's were written many years ago and don't consider
the bots that are used today to harvest valid email addresses.
Sooooo...........!
"Igor Gutman" <no@no.no> wrote in message news:3F396AF1.FF41A2D@no.no...
> Jbob wrote:
> >
> > One thing you can do with a Hotmail or Yahoo account is also to
"munge"(I
> > guess that's the correct term) your actual Hotmail or Yahoo email
address.
> > For instance if your Hotmail address is xyz@hotmail.com use instead a
> > variation of that so the Bots can't harvest your real email address but
make
> > it easy enough for a possible responder to reply via this hotmail
account.
> > Possible variations are:
> > xyz@h@tmail.com or xyz at hotmail dot com or something criptic but still
> > readable by a human. There are some RFC's that specifically tell how to
do
> > this although I'm not sure I agree.
>
> does anyone have the URL(s) of these particular RFC(s)?
>
> --
> ~much respect,
> Igor
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
> ¦ Email ........................... gutman[at]videotron[dot]ca ¦
> ¦ ICQ (same as my home phone#) ....................... 3696934 ¦
> ¦ WWW ............................ http://KpoT.doesntexist.com ¦
> +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:55:14 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, darren sanborn
<sandmansdream4u@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> wow! didn't know it was so easy!
[snip]
Presuming that what you're talking about is address-munging, as opposed to
anonymous posting/mailing (which, as I and others have pointed out, is a
different animal entirely -- and essentially impossible), it's not
particularly difficult. But unfortunately, the "finer points" of
address-munging are not well understood by many people; and as a result of
that, most of the advice you've been given so far is wrong, in at least some
way. I suggest you download and carefully review:
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/munging-address/>
especially sections 3b. and 4d.
> Although I think this is the right
> group.
[snip]
Well... There's probably a few "better" ones (<news.answers> comes to mind,
for example); but this question is not so far off-topic here that anyone
should be upset by it.
> IE privacy
>
[snip]
*That* is an oxymoron of galactic proportions.
--
Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jay,
I guess you didn't see the humor in these:
Email & Reply Address: ( postmaster@127.0.0.1 See .sig for real addr.)
or
Email & Reply Address: ( abuse@127.0.0.1 See .sig for real addr.)
or
Email & Reply Address: ( root@127.0.0.1 See .sig for real addr. )
These work pretty well for the spammers. They are valid IP addresses,
generate NO network load, and inform someone that might care
about the spam being sent :-)
Enjoy,
Don Capps
"Jay T. Blocksom" <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in message
news:hu6qjv4s02vtsujb3ogasui73q8tf5pte8@news.rcn.c om...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:32:17 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Igor Gutman
> <no@no.no> wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > does anyone have the URL(s) of these particular RFC(s)?
>
> Start here:
>
> <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq/munging-address/>
>
> especially sections 3b. and 4d.
>
> --
>
> Jay T. Blocksom
> --------------------------------
> Appropriate Technology, Inc.
> usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net
>
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to
mail.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
> Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly
prohibited
> under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
> $1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote