> I agree completely. It really amuses me how so often one hears the
> argument "A and B are both theoretically possible, so A is just as
> easy to do as B, so there is no point doing B if you don't do A as
> well". Rubbish! A spammer has to do *more work* to grab archived
> mailing lists than to suck news from a feed and gather email
> addresses. Yes, both are possible, but one is easier. No system is
> perfect, but making life even marginally harder for the spammer is
> worthwhile. After, these parasites are running commercial
> organisations. If you make it harder for them, their overheads
> increase. As their overheads increase, their prices to their customers
> increase. With luck, if you make it sufficiently hard for spammers to
> operate, they become less competitive and hence their customers will
> be less inclined to use spammers than conventional
> advertising. Without effective international laws which prohibit
> spamming, the only answer is economic warfare: make it more expensive
> for them to "get at you". Make them less competitive. Every little bit
> counts.
On the other hand, more and more people just toss away messages when they
bounce. I have long since stopped taking the time to correct mangled
addresses just to help someone out.
Peter