Re: Address munging

"Thor Kottelin" wrote in message
news:40CDFC03.BC4340B1@anta.net...

> > > I'm still not munging, and see less reason for it now than a few years
ago.

> > I've started using Sneakemail addresses to post to Usenet. Every time I
> > switch addresses, the new one gets flooded with spam within a week. That
> > proves to me that spammers are still actively harvesting addresses from
> > Usenet.

> So what? Even addresses that have never been published receive junk mail.

Sneakemail addresses cannot be spammed through those means. Ergo, posting
to Usenet with an address that does not get junk mail and is unlikely to
receive spam through dictionary attacks and the like will result in spam.

I was given grief for having a non-RFC-compliant forged address because of
spammers picking up on it despite the fact that the extension I used doesn't
even exist and may never exist.

> Forging one's address on Usenet breaks email responses without solving the
> "spam" problem.

Blocking doesn't help the "spam" problem (or the spam problem, since I don't
know why you need quotation marks). They're all band aids that only help to
mask a greater evil, however since that greater evil doesn't fight fair, why
on earth should people go out of their way to make themselves get MORE spam
and read more of it?

Makes no sense.

You tell us how to solve the "spam" (or spam) problem and we'll talk.