Re: Spam help requested

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Mon Apr 11 2005 - 12:35:21 CDT

> It doesn't matter if the text containing an @ sign is an email
> address or not - in an HTML document, writing '&#120;&#64;&#121;'
> is *equivalent* to 'x@y'.

Sure. But does that translation do anything to slow down spammers
scanning our archives for addresses?

> mess up the HTML markup, but the @ character is not part of that,
> so munging anything that matches '[a-zA-Z0-9\.]+@[a-zA-Z0-9\.]+'
> will not mess up the markup.

My address on this mailing list is :-).

In other words, your regex doesn't match it. Not that I'm worried
about my address being revealed; I know that IRL, that particular
revelation is completely unrelated to the spam I get.

Actually, I hadn't thought about it, but this is pretty strong proof
that the prior spam concern was misguided. I have been posting to this
list for almost two years. During that time I have been quoted a
pretty large number of times, often with the little attribution tag
containing my email.

So far, even though (as a public personality) I receive about 500 spams
a day (!!), I have yet to receive a single one addressed to In other words, I simply don't buy the idea
that our archives are a source of spam harvesting.

OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Sat Apr 30 23:17:05 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 30 2005 - 23:17:22 CDT