SSI and SEO

[Lois]

: >i'm going to tell my mommy on you

Big Bill" <[email protected]> responded:
: My mommy's bigger than your mommy. In fact, her bum has its own
: post-code. Also, moons.

So this is what guy talk is about.

Lois

 

[AyntRyte]

in post: <


why would spambots be so interested in ayntryte@gmail. com ?

spambots do not discriminate

he must be

paranoid to think spambots would be interested in ayntryte@gmail. com

spambots do not know the difference between paranoid and common sense.

ayntryte@gmail. com looks like a boring address anyway.

I repeat: spambots do not discriminate

if i signed up to

gmail i would have thought of something more exciting than
ayntryte@gmail. com

You can't sign up. You must be invited (at this point.) Exciting? Is
that the best you can come up with?

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[Lois]

: Neal said:
: > you've unmunged a person's email for what purpose?

"brucie" responded:
: it really annoys me. i have much better things to do than unmunge some
: clowns email address if i want to email them.

Did you want to email him? Even if you did want to, was your minor
inconvenience of needing a few seconds to type out an email address more
important than the fact that you've just ruined a perfectly good new
address? The time you took to ruin the address was more time than it
would've taken to enter his email address in the "to" field of an email.

To some people, it isn't a problem to have a real address in a newsgroup,
where spambots will harvest it, but to those who munge their addresses, it
clearly is.

: the solution is to effectively manage your email, not to make it
: difficult for people to email you.

Aside from the spambot problem, some posters don't want to be emailed.

I've been posting in newsgroups for years, and munging email addresses is a
common way to manage your email. I've never seen anyone have a problem with
it but you. Some of us prefer to prevent spambots from getting our addresses
in the first place rather than blocking the spam that comes as a result, and
losing some legit email in the process. What's wrong with not putting real
addresses online, aside from the few extra seconds it would've taken you to
email someone you probably weren't going to email anyway?

Lois

 

[brucie]

in post: <

: it really annoys me. i have much better things to do than unmunge some
: clowns email address if i want to email them.

Did you want to email him?
no

Even if you did want to, was your minor inconvenience of needing a few
seconds to type out an email address more important than the fact
that you've just ruined a perfectly good new address?

the email address is still perfectly good. the OP's inability to manage
their email is not my problem.

: the solution is to effectively manage your email, not to make it
: difficult for people to email you.

Aside from the spambot problem, some posters don't want to be emailed.

then they should use an .invalid

What's wrong with not putting real addresses online,

heres one POV http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

 

[Lois]

Lois:
: > Even if you did want to, was your minor inconvenience of needing a few
: > seconds to type out an email address more important than the fact
: > that you've just ruined a perfectly good new address?

Brucie:
: the email address is still perfectly good. the OP's inability to manage
: their email is not my problem.

Maybe the rest of us don't see it as an inability to manage email, but as a
way to manage it that's simply different from your way. C'mon now, you
wouldn't want everyone to be just like you, would you?

Aside from personal preferences about how to deal with spam, blocking it at
the mailbox level means that some legit email doesn't get through. Your way
of managing email has its merits, but so do other ways.


: > Aside from the spambot problem, some posters don't want to be emailed.
:
: then they should use an .invalid

I've never seen that anywhere in a how-to article or FAQ; it sounds like you
just decided that it should be "the" way to block spambots. And who's to say
that you wouldn't remove the "invalid" from it online? Besides, if that or
any other method becomes that common, spambots will learn to delete the
"invalid" or "removethis" or "nospam" that some people insert in their
addresses. Making one way of blocking addresses "the" way is inviting spam
IMO.


: > What's wrong with not putting real addresses online,
:
: heres one POV http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

If I weren't so tired and about to log off for the night, maybe it would
make sense, but the use of the word "terrorist" sounds far too strong to me.
The article doesn't have credibility to me when it takes a strong word like
that to talk about email. People are just trying to protect themselves from
spammers.

Lois

 

[brucie]

in post: <

: the email address is still perfectly good. the OP's inability to manage
: their email is not my problem.

Maybe the rest of us don't see it as an inability to manage email, but as a
way to manage it that's simply different from your way.

fair enough

C'mon now, you wouldn't want everyone to be just like you, would you?

absolutely not! i'm really sick of having sex with myself.

:> Aside from the spambot problem, some posters don't want to be emailed.
: then they should use an .invalid

I've never seen that anywhere in a how-to article or FAQ;

..invalid is a RTLD

it sounds like you just decided that it should be "the" way to block
spambots.

i didn't say that. i said in your response to people not wanting to be
emailed that they should use an .invalid

And who's to say that you wouldn't remove the "invalid" from it
online?

invalid means just that - invalid - so there no point in trying to send
email to an .invalid address.

<quote>".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain
names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a

: heres one POV http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/

If I weren't so tired and about to log off for the night, maybe it would
make sense, but the use of the word "terrorist" sounds far too strong to me.

only because you're reading after the 9/11 hype. note the copyright date
has it written in 1998.

The article doesn't have credibility to me when it takes a strong word like
that to talk about email.

see above

People are just trying to protect themselves from spammers.

address munging to me is akin to sticking your head in the sand and
hoping it will all go away without you having to get off your lazy arse
to do anything about it.

 

[AyntRyte]

in post: <


its real. my newsfeeds TOS says i have to use a real one.

Likely just your "spam trap" address. Unluckily for me, gmail doesn't
offer aliases (so far.)

it really annoys me. i have much better things to do than unmunge some
clowns email address if i want to email them.

If you really wanted to email me, why do I not have an email from you in
my inbox explaining why you're so annoyed, instead of unmunging my
address for all the spambots to gobble up? If you had better things to
do, this thread would not have propagated to this.

the solution is to effectively manage your email, not to make it
difficult for people to email you.

This is Usenet, not a mailto, forum, POP3 or webmail. There's nothing
difficult about it. Just hit the reply button if you want to reply.
Other than that, what you saw is just another sig.

 

[brucie]

in post: <

Likely just your "spam trap" address.

there is no "spam trap" about it. its the address i use for usenet so i
know the email came from usenet. simple. if its a problem for you you
can use (e-mail address removed) if you like.

If you really wanted to email me,

i don't want to email you and i don't agree with address munging so if i
notice a munged address i'll unmunge it. you'll just have to live with
it.

 

[AyntRyte]

the email address is still perfectly good. the OP's inability to manage
their email is not my problem.

Translation:
Benedict Arnold

 

[Toby A Inkster]

They're probably just as interested in (e-mail address removed), but that's
likely not your real address, is it?

You'd be surprised.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

brucie wrote:

: then they should use an .invalid

I've never seen that anywhere in a how-to article or FAQ; it sounds like you

Then you've done no homework.

..invalid is a special, legal, top level domain. In some of the articles I have
read (yes, they are out there) it's explained that mail to TLD .invalid
won't even be sent (i.e., will be binned at either the client or the
MTA), thus saving both the bandwidth of transmission and of bounce.

..invalid is mentioned more than once in the "How should I mung my
address?" section, here (good advice even if it is found at AOHell):

http://members.aol.com/emailfaq/mungfaq.html

just decided that it should be "the" way to block spambots. And who's to say

More homework needed, Lois.

that you wouldn't remove the "invalid" from it online? Besides, if that or
any other method becomes that common, spambots will learn to delete the
"invalid" or "removethis" or "nospam" that some people insert in their
addresses. Making one way of blocking addresses "the" way is inviting spam
IMO.

So remove the .invalid from my address, and email me, eh?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

I repeat: spambots do not discriminate

They also tend to not bother downloading message bodies.

 

[Webcastmaker]

why would spambots be so interested in (e-mail address removed) ? he must be
paranoid to think spambots would be interested in (e-mail address removed)
(e-mail address removed) looks like a boring address anyway. if i signed up to
gmail i would have thought of something more exciting than
(e-mail address removed)

your bad.... ;-}

 

[brucie]

in post: <

They also tend to not bother downloading message bodies.

<gasp/> whatever you do DON'T look at the headers of
(e-mail address removed)

i really mean it!

 

[Webcastmaker]

So this is what guy talk is about.

Only when we get bored

 

[Webcastmaker]

Then you've done no homework.

The easiest way is to use use "(e-mail address removed) as your
email. Let George deal with the spammers.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

<gasp/> whatever you do DON'T look at the headers of
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Neal]

You'd be surprised.

By brucie, never...

 

[AyntRyte]

AyntRyte wrote:




They also tend to not bother downloading message bodies.

Perhaps not. The spambots can just wait until the messages are archived
as html at various sites.

 

[Lois]

:> Aside from the spambot problem, some posters don't want to be emailed.

: >: then they should use an .invalid

Lois responded:
: > I've never seen that anywhere in a how-to article or FAQ;
:
: .invalid is a RTLD

OK. To keep my comments about "invalid" in one post, I'm putting most of
them in my response to Blinky.


: > And who's to say that you wouldn't remove the "invalid" from it
: > online?
:
: invalid means just that - invalid - so there no point in trying to send
: email to an .invalid address.

There's no point in trying to send email to an address with "NOSPAM" in it
either, but people do anyway. They often don't look at the address itself.

How is anyone to know that you wouldn't remove "invalid" but might unmung
addresses munged other ways? The "invalid" thing is not common knowledge.
(And I don't think it's that useful anyway, which I've said more about in my
other post sent at the same time.)

My point was that your unmunging other people's addresses serves no purpose
except to entertain those who like to laugh at other people's expense, it
takes longer than it would to unmung it to email the person, and it ruins
the address as a spam-free one. If you want to inform people about .invalid,
you don't need to ruin an address to do so.

You know all that. You've done it a few times that I've seen, and it really
bothers me, so I finally spoke up about it. I don't suppose I can appeal to
your warm and fuzzy feelings to stop unmunging addresses in NG posts, can I?



: >: heres one POV http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
:
: > If I weren't so tired and about to log off for the night, maybe it would
: > make sense, but the use of the word "terrorist" sounds far too strong to
me.
:
: only because you're reading after the 9/11 hype. note the copyright date
: has it written in 1998.

Good point. You might not call it "hype" if you lived in North America,
though. Also, the word had a loaded meaning for some of us even before then,
e.g., those who live or have lived in the Middle East. And really, fear of
spam is hardly the same thing as the fear of being blown up.


: > People are just trying to protect themselves from spammers.
:
: address munging to me is akin to sticking your head in the sand and
: hoping it will all go away without you having to get off your lazy arse
: to do anything about it.

I could say that blocking all HTML email is sticking one's head in the sand
etc. too, but no, that wouldn't be nice. ;-)

Lois