> I don't especially like munged addresses either, but providing it's obvious
> (and obvious how to undo the obfuscation) I think it may be a necessary
> evil at times.
Is there an assumption that spam address harvesters would be incapable of
replacing all occurences of 'DOT' with '.' and 'AT' with '_at_' ?
Received on Tue Oct 23 2001 - 14:22:17 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:20 BST