Re: Email address munging in the TLUG archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (was Re: [tlug] NYT Article on Spam)

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Jim wrote:

> Curt Sampson wrote:
>
> > So why would we bother to obfuscate addresses?
>
> To frustrate the spammers
> while letting legitimate folks get in touch with each other.
>
> It's a compromise.

Let me restate my opinion succiently: obfuscating addresses

    1. Frustrates the legitimate folks to some degree, ranging from
    trivially to seriously, depending on the method of obfuscation.

    2. Spammers are no longer affected at all by obfuscation (if they
    ever were); most obfuscation is trivial to fix and there are many
    non-obfuscated sources for addresses anyway.

This compromise appears to me to be: make work for admins and annoy
users to some degree in trade for zero effective spam protection.

(I should also state that for me this particular application is entirely
academic: I have almost no posts in the archive anyway. So on a personal
level, it doesn't really matter to me.)

cjs
--
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974