|
|
Posted by Smarty on 01/10/06 04:00
Martin,
I offered to help the original poster convert an HDV file. Since I have no
FTP or other facility to provide a file transfer, I asked for his email
address. Certainly there are many ways to convey this email address in such
a manner that *****absolutely no script whatsoever*** would decode it.
He could, for example, do something as simple as space out the email as j o
h n a o l . com or he could have sent it in any one of a nearly infinite
variety of ways which a human will immediately recognizer and a script will
not. He could say something as simple as: my email address spelled backwards
is moc.loa@nhoj or replace remove all of the x's in my email
johnxxx@aolxxx.comxxx
My point was and still is that conveying an email address is not in any way
a guaranteed way of getting spammed, and certainly will not (as Nappy
claims) add you to "every spam list in existence".........
I am totally offended by Nappy who offers no constructive suggestion,
essentially criticizes my attempt to help others, and provides a totally
specious claim which is both untrue and highly exaggerated.
Smarty
"Martin Heffels" <mitch.mcNeilljn@sprint.ca> wrote in message
news:4k06s1d54ibsoku922l8m1sgh83dplpupe@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:18:48 -0500, "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
>
>>Nappy,
>>
>>Like your asshole, your opinion stinks.
>
> Cool down man! :)
>
> Light encoding is not such a good idea. Many people use the same simple
> word (remove), or the thing you suggested with the name "at" domain. For
> an
> e-mail address collector, it is very simple to write a script to remove
> these things in the blink of an eye, and you're in a database and the
> gates
> open up to the hell of spam. Better is to ROT13 the address, make a less
> obvious "encoding" or no address at all.
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Never be afraid to try something new.
> Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
> A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|