sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Jason Flatt <jason AT flattfamily.com>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .
- Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:10:24 -0700
On Saturday 19 June 2004 6:44 pm, David Kowis wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sm-discuss-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > [mailto:sm-discuss-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Jason Flatt
> > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:27 PM
> > To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .
> >
> > On Saturday 19 June 2004 7:05 am, Jason Flatt wrote:
> > > It seems we have two ways of doing it: 1) the entire e-mail
> >
> > address as one
> >
> > > long word with the @ and the . converted to something
> >
> > like_AT_ and _DOT_
> >
> > > (as Andrew as done for his e-mail addresses -- I followed
> >
> > his lead),
> >
> > Done! If I made any mistakes, or if you really like all that
> > extra e-mail,
> > let me know or feel free to change it yourself. :^)
>
> My only thought is, will this be sufficient? I know that, as a programmer,
> that's really easy to get around
> If I find something similar to _AT_ or _DOT_ then I should replace it with
> @ or . It may be perfectly fine, but like I said, it's my only thought :)
Really, nothing is fool proof. To a resourceful person who is bound to
scavenge our e-mail addresses, they will come up with a way to get them, even
if it's manually entering them. But to a majority of the bots that are just
scrounging around whatever site they come up with, I'm hoping this will help
reduce that amount of spam.
--
Jason Flatt (jason @ flattfamily . com)
Father of five (http://www.flattfamily.com/)
Linux user (http://www.sourcemage.org/)
IRC Nick: Oadae Channels: #sourcemage, #lvlug Server: irc.freenode.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/IT d(-) s+:- a>++++ C++$(+++) UL++++ P(+) L+++ E- W++ N+@ o? K? w-- O?
M-- V PS- PE+ Y+ PGP@ t 5+ X R tv--() b+@ DI+@ D+++ G e h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-
[SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/19/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Arwed von Merkatz, 06/19/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Eric Sandall, 06/19/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/19/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/19/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Jason Flatt, 06/19/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/19/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Paul, 06/20/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Jason Flatt, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Arwed von Merkatz, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/20/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Seth Alan Woolley, 06/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Robin, 06/21/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . ., Sergey A. Lipnevich, 06/21/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Seth Alan Woolley, 06/21/2004
-
RE: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
David Kowis, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Jason Flatt, 06/20/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Spam Proofing . . .,
Paul, 06/20/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.