[OT] PCYMTNQREAIYR, it really works.

[Andrew DeFaria]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> Generally speaking, no measure is completely spam-proof, except 
> complete erasure of e-mail addresses (which will conflict with any 
> other legitimate use of "@" on the list). Spamming is more or less an 
> industry now, and one can imagine an industrious spammer (or spam 
> harvester -- not the same thing) writing a filter that looks for words 
> like "mail archive" on web pages and applies more elaborate spam 
> harvesting techniques for those pages that have them. Still, deterring 
> 99% of spam harvesters is better than not deterring any at all. 
> Anything that helps even a little bit should be done.

I took a different approach and implemented my own spam filtering using 
LAMP. It's a permission based system (which I know some people dislike) 
but it works very well for me. I get ~1000 - 1500 emails a day, most of 
which are spam but my filter system only allows email from registered 
users therefore only the proper handful get through. As a result of this 
I post my email address without worry. YMMV.
-- 
This is as bad as it can get, but don't bet on it.


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/