When I was with Qwest.net, I received very little spam, but I also gave
my email address to very few companies, and NEVER posted to Usenet with
it (even spam-ified)...
When I switched to Earthlink, my mailbox was full of spam before I even
got the DSL line connected. I turned on their 'Spaminator' filter, and
haven't received any since. YMMV.
Since most of these people are sending email out to a CDROM full of
addresses, playing dead doesn't help. I occasionally get junk mail at
work that lists a few other addresses, and one had two of MY old
addresses from 10 years ago.
Clint
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Jerome Fine wrote:
> >Andreas Freiherr wrote:
>
> > Maybe slightly OT, but...
> > Right! The best way to fight spam is not to react at all: even spammers
> > will let dead people alone.
> > However, there's one thing that is even better than playing "dead man":
> > "teergrubing" (see
> > http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/teergrube.html for the
> > word, and if that sounds interesting, the FAQ is
> > http://www.iks-jena.de/mitarb/lutz/usenet/teergrube.en.html)
> > I love the idea!
> > Andreas
>
> Jerome Fine replies:
>
> I also find that spam is annoying and I was wondering if there is anything
> an individual can do except to change to a different e-mail address? In that
> respect, can anyone suggest how long an e-mail address needs to be unavailable
> before the spam will stop for that address?
>
> I realize that changing my e-mail address constantly will be very inconvenient.
> Is there any other way to completely stop spam other than by not giving
> out my e-mail address? Has anyone tried changing their e-mail address
> to stop spam and about how long does this seem to work?
>
> I am almost certain to be changing to a different ISP in the next few months,
> so my e-mail address will need to change in any case. I was thinking of adding
> Jan, Feb, etc. for each month in turn. Can anyone suggest if once a month is
> more frequent than needed? JFM, AMJ, JAS, OND would do if every three
> months is sufficient. I could instead use an extra 3 characters at random
> and just change them when the spam volume becomes too high, but that might
> prevent someone from sending me an e-mail more than a few weeks later.
>
> Or might three letters for the month be OK as a public e-mail address that only
> needs to be used when someone attempts to contact me after a random three
> character "addendum" to the address has been cancelled, but would never be
> used in normal correspondence? If that is so, any spam to that e-mail address
> would obviously be unsolicited at the least and difficult to "mine" at best.
>
> Perhaps if all of us made some suggestions, the above might be completely
> unsatisfactory, but some sort of anti-spam mechanism could be developed
> that was both simple and effective? I think this might be a very useful thread.
>
> In addition, one thing that also might help that I have found - before I run through
> my e-mails, I try to remember to turn OFF my internet connection. Since I am
> on a dial-up modem, this is normal for me in any case. When I do so, I notice
> that more than half the spam I receive attempt to connect to a "home" site to
> download additional bytes. Can anyone tell me if that could provide the site
> with my e-mail address (not to mention other stuff) for my system? By blocking
> the internet connection, I presume that presents any feedback. That has not
> stopped the spam, however.
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Jerome Fine
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 31 2002 - 08:59:50 GMT