Jules wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:22:02 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Jules wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:26:17 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:
First to e-mail me off group
...
I'm not sure what the benefit if having the 'nospam' address in your
message header is if you're going to do that ;-)
That might be why I included my real e mail address :-)

Indeed - but what's the point of hiding your address from the spammers if
you're just going to outright give it to them in the message? Now the WD40
police will find you

Interestingly, research suggests[1] that harvesting of email addresses
from usenet is *far* more likely to happen with addresses that appear in
the headers that those that just appear in the body text.

[1] An oldish, but interesting paper:
http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml

"For the vast majority of the spam we received due to USENET postings,
messages were sent to addresses referenced in the message header, not to
addresses referenced in the text of the message. In a very few cases
(1% of all USENET-related spam we received), messages were sent to
addresses referenced in the message text. In all cases, spam was sent to
addresses that were included in plaintext, not obscured in any way."

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/