X-no-Archive:yes

Joe Geiser writes:
>[Denys writes:]
>> This is why I use the X-no-archive construct above.  I participate in
>> several lists that feed to DejaNews.  My posts are not archived in
>> DejaNews.  I get very little spam.
>
>Denys hit this on the head - so I guess you can blame us, since we operate
>the gateway.
>
>BTW, it's not just DejaNews, anyone with an ISP that provides NNTP feeds,
>can feed Usenet to a server.  It's a lot of bandwidth and a lot of disk
>space, but most ISPs provide the feed free of charge to leased line or frame
>relay customers.  Any spammer with a few dollars can get a feed.

That's actually what I don't understand about Denys's post. Why should a
harvester go to Deja News when it's easier and faster to just harvest
from newsgroups directly? I'm skeptical that Denys's X-no-Archive:yes
actually has a significant effect.

I think a bigger problem is harvesters that operate directly on web
sites. My address appears on a number of publicly-accessible web sites,
and there's very little I can do about it without also losing "good"
mail. Interex is one such site, since I write the 3000-L summary; I
stopped including posters' email addresses in the summaries about a year
ago because of the harvesting problem.

I'll do an experiment to figure out whether addresses really get
harvested from Deja News, starting with this post.

-- Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback    Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.            (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142      | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                   | It gives a lovely light.
btoback AT optc.com                |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mail sent to [log in to unmask] will be inspected for a
fee of US$250. Mailing to said address constitutes agreement to
pay, including collection costs.