[OT] Use of me AT privacy DOT net email address

I think the best strategy is to use a valid address as a spam trap. Munging causes a doubling of the bandwidth, as emails, with any attachments, are sent back. And since most return addresses are fake, a bit of a loop is created as they're sent back again.

Keep a disposable address and check it daily or weekly for any real mail (that's a lot easier to do than to pick bad mail out of a regular Inbox). Comes in handy for use with questionable Web sign-ups too.

p.

I don't know if you read the munging how-to I gave the link to, but this section addresses those concerns:

[quote] Invalid Addresses If you really don't want to get email, use a really invalid address like snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid, snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid or snipped-for-privacy@invalid.invalid. foo@[127.0.0.1] or foo@localhost also work because if someone sends spam to them, they don't leave the sending computer. However some newsreaders won't accept an address that doesn't have the correct syntax. And some others may not display it the way that you intended. [/quote]

My newsreader, 40tude Dialog, does not accept localhost or the numeric equivalent. Which is why you see the @invalid.invalid in my from address.

Spammotel, , addresses this very well. Unlimited disposable addresses that can be filtered and or disabled as needed. Plus it's free.

That day is long past because of spamming. Mail systems nowadays somehow work around this. I've only the vaguest of idea how, but it has to do with checking if the recipient is valid before accepting the mail and then later returning undeliverable mail to the reply-to address.

I disagree with your interpretation of that URL. It simply states that they do not send email and actively fight spam. Nowhere does it say that the use of "Me AT privacy dot net" is verboten.

Your usage should work, since there's no address at all. Note: this also prevents you from receiving real mail (and that might be fine with you). But tagging "invalid" onto a valid address, I would think would not work, since it is simple to strip off via script.

p.

Not in my experience. If I use a remote server to SMTP through, and the recipient's address is not valid, the mail does indeed leave this computer, venture out, and return again. Only when I use direct MX lookup is that preempted.

p.

Mike, what part of "If you have received an email with our domain name included anywhere in the message, please be aware that this use of our domain name is unauthorized.", is not clear to you?

The previous owner of privacy.net that allowed the use, also had a very to the point automated reply to any email that was sent to me @ privacy . net. That does not happen any more, the domain is under different ownership.

I can get email, the reply to is a working address. At least it will work until I get the first spam, and then I will know it was harvested from this newsgroup. Once that happens I will kill it and create a new one.

The part where it does not sound like "you are not permitted to use the 'me AT privacy DOT net' email address in newsgroup postings.".

What they said sounds to me like "Don't come and hassle me if you get email sent from 'me AT privacy DOT net', this domain never sends email under that moniker."