Hi, * V K [02-06-16 14:23:03 +0200] wrote: > Various people wrote:
Bad idea. I'm too lazy to look up who actually wrote what... > I don't see how using reply-to: is any use, any spammer > with half a brain would harvest both from: and reply-to:. Getting the overview from a newsserver is much faster than downloading full article headers and parsing it. > > > 2. Do many people use a fake email address from? Ie, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This is really bad since it will generate bouncing mails > > that other people have to take of. > Not nearly as much as is saved by the reduction in spam, > so there's a net gain to the internet. > > Better use a dummy account you don't read (just delete > > the mail). > And how does that count on traffic? Much worse, it creates > traffic to *my* ISP, rather than to the ISP of the spammer > (who I don't care about). A serious question: how many spammers did you see using their valid mail address? The reduction of traffic appears to you because of your invalid address. And that you don't notice anything doesn't mean that there are no stupid bounces generating even more senceless traffic. Just use an address the spam gets delivered to and gets deleted. I still only see disadvantages using faked addresses. Cheers, Rocco
