> On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 10:31:47 -0700 > li...@lazygranch.com wrote: >> âThis seems counter intuitive. So I am better off having a catch-all >> account that random emailers will fill up than not having one?
"It Depends." Who cares if it's counter-intuitive. It's Observed Behavior. And in this case, even you have observed it. It's been a technique in active use for two decades. > No! Even though you don't have to have a mailbox to fill up (you can > direct catch-all to /dev/null) this is still a bad idea. If someone > sends you an important message at li...@lazygranch.com it will be > silently ignored. If you don't have a catch-all the message will > bounce and the sender will realize that he made a typo and resend it. This fails badly for many security and privacy reasons if you are doing anything other than running a personal, vanity domain. But like many techniques, there are pros, cons, and trade-offs. Your Mileage *WILL* Vary. Aloha mai Nai`a. -- " So this is how Liberty dies ... http://kapu.net/~mjwise/ " To Thunderous Applause.
