[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Creative Addressing

2003-10-03 18:20:37
At 4:18 PM -0400 10/3/03, Curtis M. Kularski wrote:
I find item #1 humorous, "unscrupulous companies". Ever shopped with They sell addresses, but yet have a high amount of consumer

As I mentioned, I use tagged email addresses. I've shopped with since they opened the store. I've never had them sell my address. They *did* expose it to the public once, when I commented on an auction vendor, not realizing they would use my address, but that was easy enough to fix once I realized it.

What evidence do you have that they sell addresses?

In response to item 3, the idea of the disposable address is for the
server to dispose of the mail and not respond. The server would forward
the mail to a dead-end account.

Those two statements contradict each other. Either you reject the mail, or you forward it. If you forward it, then you get a *huge* bandwidth hit. I assumed that you would reject it, and my example addresses that assumption:

 > 3. Spreading lots of different email addresses around is a bad idea.
 The fact that you know you can reject them really doesn't help.  As  we
 speak, my mail server is eating up 8-16KBs of bandwidth right now  doing
 nothing but rejecting email sent to non-existent addresses.  Yesterday
 some idiot on Level3's network tried to connect to our mail  server
 500,000 times.  You do *not* want that happening to your mail  server.
 Increasing the number of throwaway addresses simply
 > increases the bandwidth costs of spam.

None of those addresses are being accepted. That bandwidth and traffic comes from bouncing spam and viruses sent to 40,000 non-existent addresses. We bounce one every two seconds in normal times, 10-15 a second during peak virus season. To put that in terms of throw-away addresses, I'd guess that an average user might have 20 throwaways in a year, so call that the traffic for 2000 users (the first year--of course it doubles every year after that).

Throwaway addresses are based on the assumption that sending mail to a non-existent address is "free". It isn't.
Kee Hinckley         Next Generation Spam Defense  Writings on Technology and Society

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.

Asrg mailing list