Not Really Aviation Related, But...

[Dan Marotta]

I often notice that when someone wants a private email reply, he
includes an easily decrypted version of his email, e.g., john (dot)
smith (at) gmail (dot) com.Â* I only need to look at the "From" field on
the message as it's displayed in my email client (Thunderbird), to see
the email address and I can reply simply by clicking the "Reply" button.

Is this not the case with some other methods of looking at RAS? Curious
minds, and all (or what's left of it)...
--
Dan, 5J

[Paul Agnew]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 11:41:46 AM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I often notice that when someone wants a private email reply, he
> includes an easily decrypted version of his email, e.g., john (dot)
> smith (at) gmail (dot) com.Â* I only need to look at the "From" field on
> the message as it's displayed in my email client (Thunderbird), to see
> the email address and I can reply simply by clicking the "Reply" button.
>
> Is this not the case with some other methods of looking at RAS? Curious
> minds, and all (or what's left of it)...
> --
> Dan, 5J

I don't receive the posts via email and only see RAS via the groups.google.com webpage. Your return email address is not visible to me. This is probably the case with a large number of us. Thus, the "encrypted" email addresses.

Paul A.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

It's to keep "bots" from grabbing email addresses and then spamming them, bots usually ignore the "encryption", but humans can figure it out.
Headers from posts are also not usually visible to a bot.

Plenty of tech peeps here that can expand on it if you ask.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> It's to keep "bots" from grabbing email addresses and then spamming them, bots usually ignore the "encryption", but humans can figure it out.
> Headers from posts are also not usually visible to a bot.
>
> Plenty of tech peeps here that can expand on it if you ask.

It's largely a silly waste of time, bots certainly scrape the headers straight off USENET without going though Google Groups. Bots can also reassemble the "encrypted" silliness. Of course what they scrap from headers might be fake or burner addresses... up to how paranoid and hard to contact you want to be.

[Dan Marotta]

My spam filter takes care of the junk and it's very convenient to simply
have the messages in my email.Â* As I said, I was just curious.Â* And it's
been raining for the past week (over 3 inches here in New Mexico!), so
there's not much else fun to do right now...

On 10/1/2017 11:26 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
>> It's to keep "bots" from grabbing email addresses and then spamming them, bots usually ignore the "encryption", but humans can figure it out.
>> Headers from posts are also not usually visible to a bot.
>>
>> Plenty of tech peeps here that can expand on it if you ask.
> It's largely a silly waste of time, bots certainly scrape the headers straight off USENET without going though Google Groups. Bots can also reassemble the "encrypted" silliness. Of course what they scrap from headers might be fake or burner addresses... up to how paranoid and hard to contact you want to be.
>

--
Dan, 5J

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 09:41:41 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Is this not the case with some other methods of looking at RAS? Curious
> minds, and all (or what's left of it)...
>
I use the Pan newsreader to read news groups and long ago set the
'address' in the headers to a valid invalid address (.invalid) is
accepted by all NNTP servers and almost all readers. For the benefit of
humans and in the (probably mistaken) belief that it will fool a simple
scraper I put my real address in my sig file but split vertically across
different lines and with non-address text added on the same lines. Pan is
quite good at suppressing messages from trolls and obnoxious threads.

I'm not that concerned about scrapers and forgers: I have SPF set up for
my domain and run a copy of Spamassassin. SPF lets others see if/when my
address is as being used as a forged sender. Spamassassin does a pretty
good job of detecting incoming spam and, as a backstop, I long ago turned
off the 'preview' facility on any mail readers I use because 'preview'
opens all attachments without checking whether they may be malicious.

Thats probably more than you wanted to know, but you did ask!


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

Yep, I can't access the e-dress of any poster, so assume I need to add my address..........I'm using an iPod most of the time.
JJ

[kinsell]

Just checked my rckymtnsoaring email account I use for usenet postings,
it has attracted zero spam. Don't know why the bots haven't picked it
up, but they haven't. Don't know why my news server insisted on using a
live email address, but they did. Don't know why Google Groups has such
a silly security mechanism, but they do. It all seems to work out.


On 10/01/2017 11:30 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> My spam filter takes care of the junk and it's very convenient to simply
> have the messages in my email.Â* As I said, I was just curious.Â* And it's
> been raining for the past week (over 3 inches here in New Mexico!), so
> there's not much else fun to do right now...
>
> On 10/1/2017 11:26 AM, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 1, 2017 at 9:38:56 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002
>> owner/pilot) wrote:
>>> It's to keep "bots" from grabbing email addresses and then spamming
>>> them, bots usually ignore the "encryption", but humans can figure it
>>> out.
>>> Headers from posts are also not usually visible to a bot.
>>>
>>> Plenty of tech peeps here that can expand on it if you ask.
>> It's largely a silly waste of time, bots certainly scrape the headers
>> straight off USENET without going though Google Groups. Bots can also
>> reassemble the "encrypted" silliness. Of course what they scrap from
>> headers might be fake or burner addresses... up to how paranoid and
>> hard to contact you want to be.
>>
>