--On Thursday, May 01, 2003 3:25 PM -0400 Omar Thameen
<omar@westside.urbanblight.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:31:07AM -0400, Tom Neff wrote:
>> I acknowledge that cloaking addresses in archives is better than nothing,
>> but in the long run I do not think that trying to keep email addresses
>> secret is an effective antispam policy. To be useful, at least some
>> addresses must be known.
>
> More than better than nothing. According to this study:
> http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml
>
> "The vast majority of the spam we received -- over 97% of it -- was
> delivered to addresses that had been posted on the public Web."
Regardless of whether ACTUALLY keeping email addresses secret (should the
fantasy ever be realized) would be an effective antispam policy, what I wrote
above - TRYING to keep email addresses secret - is not an effective antispam
policy.
I am familiar with the study referred to, and I look forward to their
followup study using the same addresses one year later. I think they will
find that their percentages change. If they fail to do one, someone should
do it for them.
References:
|
|
