spammers harvesting emaill address from this list

[Danny Pansters]

I don't want to hijack this, erm, thread, but I get loads of spam (my mail 
goes through a hosting provider, I (post-)filter locally) and a significant 
part of it is loaded with technical terms, even FreeBSD specific. I suppose 
it's meant to confuse filters. Do other folks get this too?

Dan

On Friday 24 August 2007 01:00:20 Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On Thursday, August 23, 2007 22:37:53 +0100 dgmm <freebsd01 at dgmm.net>
>
> wrote:
> >> Basically, what you (and others as well) are suggesting is that the list
> >> maintainers do double the work so that you don't have to bother with
> >> spam filtering.
> >
> > How does this equate to double the work for the list maintainers?  I've
> > never  operated a mailing list so I don't understand what work is
> > involved in  operating one or how that workload might be increased if
> > some people post  with one name while having the automated system mail
> > out to a different,  subscribed address
>
> Most modern mailing list software tests addresses periodically,
> automatically to make sure they are accepting mail.  Some have suggested
> "solving" the spam problem by using throwaway addresses to send email to
> the list **even if the address doesn't work**.  Now the maintainers have to
> maintain a separate list of exemptions and configure separate options so
> that those throwaway addresses aren't dropped from the list automatically
> after the requisite number of bounces.  And endure the endless bounce
> notifications from hundreds of thoughtless people.
>
> >> Seems rather self-centered to me.
> >
> > In what way?
>
> You have a problem.  You want someone else to help you solve it by creating
> more work for them so that you'll have less work to do.
>
> >> This is the internet.  Spam is endemic.
> >
> > So rather than look for multiple methods to reduce the amount of incoming
> > to  *my* address I should just accept it all and filter it locally?
>
> Absolutely.  It isn't the responsibility of the rest of the world to solve
> your problem.
>
> > That seems rather irresponsible to me,  ANy method which can help stop it
> > source appeaers on the face of it to be a better solution.
>
> Of course it does, because it requires no work on your part.  It's always
> "better" if you can get someone else to expend energy on your behalf while
> you sit back and reap the benefits.  That's why unthinking people love
> socialism.
>
> >> Short of encasing your computer in
> >> concrete, there's no way to avoid getting spam **even if you never post
> >> to a mailing list**.  Either learn to deal with it or stop subscribing
> >> to lists.
> >
> > I'm sure that attitude will appear welcoming to new users.
>
> Gee, I'm sorry I hurt someone's feelings by suggesting they take
> responsibility for their own problems.  Let me get down on my knees and beg
> forgiveness.
>
> I subscribe to more than 50 lists.  You have no idea what a pleasure it is
> to read, over and over again, about other people's problems with spam.
> It's useless chatter that solves nothing and makes the list less valuable.
> (And yes, you do enough of it, and I'll /dev/null your address and never
> hear from you again.)  If people took a few minutes to figure out how to
> rid themselves of the spam, they'd accomplish more than all the endless
> discussions about how to solve an unsolveable problem.