[thelist] Hiveware email address encoder

[David A. Ulevitch]

That is called "Assassination Politics" and is not a new idea nor is it a
feasable one.

-davidu

<quote who="bruce">
> so here you go...
>
> a rather draconian solution for spam....
>
> since we all agree the issue really isn't whatever form an email address
> might be in on a particular site....
>
> we all..i think...agree that the real issue is/are the #$%$&%&% who do
> spam...
>
> we set up a bounty on the spammers...
>
> i figure $10.00 from a bunch of people will generate a $10-20Million in no
> time...
>
> we'll work the deatils out as we go... a spammer only sends spam to make
> $$$
> (or rubles!!)
>
> we follow the $$$..it always leaves a trail... we figure out where the
> credit card goes if someone gets a larger penis/bigger boobs...!!!
>
> we then decide how much out of the bounty pool goes to the person who
> shoots
> the person who runs the company that produced the spam....
>
> we only need to do it a couple of times....it'll make the news... we'll be
> heros!! spammers will stop..it's not worth their dying!!!
>
> comments/criticsms welcome!!!
>
> peace
>
> -bruce
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Tom Dell'Aringa
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 3:39 PM
> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
> Subject: Re: [thelist] Hiveware email address encoder
>
>
> --- rudy <rudy937 at rogers.com> wrote:
>> however, i'll give it another shot (hopefully my last)
>
>> > How do you suggest I as an individual "not condone email
>> > harvesting"?
>>
>> by making sure that your email cannot be picked up by spambots
>
> Hrm. So it's MY responsibility as an individual to help defeat the
> bots? (us vs. the borg as it were eh?)
>
> Boy, Rudy I find that comment nothing short of amazing! So it is MY
> fault I get spam! However, I think its already been proven (jeff said
> so nicely) that:
>
> A. The Enkoder (and many other tricks such as joe at joe dot com) are
> surely not 100% effective. We can't know how effective they are. We
> can't even know if they are effective AT ALL. We can know, however,
> that for people that have disabilities, or no JS on, or in some other
> instances that they cannot easily get our contact information! For a
> business, that is unacceptable. I don't care if you have 1,000 email
> addresses on your corporate site, its unacceptable.
>
> B. What about people who are unaware of these methods? These are
> HARDLY widely used methods. In fact, other than web developers on
> their personal sites, blogs and lists - I don't know anyone else who
> uses them
>
>> > Okay, I don't condone it.  Wait, my mailbox is still filling up.
>> yeah, like "all we need is love" -- oops, another war
>
> I don't get the connection - although I agree John Lennon was a putz.
>
>> the thing about spam is that it <em>does</em> cost you
>
> Don't think anyone disagrees on that (well, I don't).
>
>> and as long as we're discussing things rationally, may i suggest
>> that the
>> cost of dealing with spam is threefold -- the cost to set up a
>> filter, the
>> cost to manage the filter on an ongoing basis (e.g. looking through
>> the spam
>> folder for false positives), and the cost of wasted network cycles
>
> The cost of NOT doing it is worse.
>
>> compare this to the lost sales revenue of a couple of
>> dumber-than-bricks
>> (note: this epithet is not specifically aimed at anybody's parents)
>> potential customers who cannot figure out "joe at acme dot com"
>
> Your missing the point that it's not just "dumber than bricks"
> people. Jeff already discussed this and I agree with him.
>
>> dismissing a scheme which does not provide 100% access to
>> absolutely
>> everybody, which unfortunately include spambots, just because a
>> couple of
>> people wouldn't "get it" is a sad argument for accepting the
>> onslaught of spam, because that'll sure as heck cost you
>
> But you've misstated the argument.
>
> 1. It might be 0%, not 100, or 80 or 50%.
> 2. Lots more people probably don't get it than you state.
> 3. I don't "accept" the onslaught, I deal with it.
> 4. Few people are using these methods at all, only techies for the
> most part.
>
> Again, if you are a business owner, you don't take the chance on
> someone not being able to reach you. There are ways of dealing with
> spam, so you deal with it.
>
> In short, the problem of spam is not people who don't "hide email
> addresses" effectively. The problem is the people behind the spam.
>
> cheers!
>
> Tom
>
>
> =====
> http://www.pixelmech.com/ :: Web Development Services
> http://www.DMXzone.com/ :: Premium Content Author / JavaScript / Every
> Friday!
> http://www.maccaws.com/ :: Group Leader
> [Making A Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards]
>
> "That's not art, that's just annoying." -- Squidward
> --
> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
> Evolt.org conference in London, July 25-27 2003.  Register today at
> http://evolt.org.uk
>
> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester
> and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> Workers of the Web, evolt !
>
> --
> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>
> Evolt.org conference in London, July 25-27 2003.  Register today at
> http://evolt.org.uk
>
> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester
> and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> Workers of the Web, evolt !
>


----------------------------------------------------
   David A. Ulevitch -- http://david.ulevitch.com
  http://everydns.net -+- http://communitycolo.net
Campus Box 6957 + Washington University in St. Louis
----------------------------------------------------