Jbob wrote:
>
> >
> > "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've have also read the posting for AOL users however that was written
> several years ago. I question the technique of using INVALID in place of
> the domain. In the very same section it mentions not using something that
> is too "Standard". If everyone is using .INVALID then wouldn't that make it
> easy for the bots/harvesters to just strip out the INVALID and then all the
> Spammers need to do is add either .com or .net and then get a users valid
> email address? Seems like bad advice to me. Besides you didn't use
> invalid in your munge :-)
> My $.02 worth.

ah!.. but even here you can you the "munging" - munging inside munging )
like for example .1NVAL1D

just be creative improvize