urgent business/investment deal

From: Jerome Fine <jhfine_at_idirect.com>
Date: Fri Mar 15 18:27:32 2002

>Douglas Quebbeman wrote:

> Sure, but SPAM is at least partly pervasive due to the low cost
> of harvesting addresses. This might bump it into the unprofitable
> zone...

I have asked for comments on the following - does anyone care?

(a) Very soon, I will be changing my ISP mail server and this will
require a change in my e-mail address to: <jhfinepw4z_at_compsys.to>
This address is already running in parallel with the current one.

(b) While that address will be active for a reasonable period of
time (initially enough for 99.9% of all replies), when I start to
receive sufficient spam, that e-mail address will be discontinued.

(c) Anyone who wishes to contact me after that e-mail address is
no longer available (and who does not know the next e-mail
address) will be able to use a semi-permanent address in which
the four characters preceding the 'at' will be replaced by the four
digits of the current year.

(d) There are over 1,000,000 possible e-mail addresses that
I can have using four random alphanumeric characters (36**4).

If most people used some method like this to defeat spam,
such a small percentage of spam could be delivered that within
a few years, the cost of harvesting an e-mail address might
become too expensive.

Is anyone else willing to give it a try?
Received on Fri Mar 15 2002 - 18:27:32 GMT