[ale]OT It begins... (jumping into the middle)

[groups at ChangingLINKS.com (ChangingLINKS.com)]

> No one has discounted any simple measures so far.  In fact, a few folks
> have pointed out that it is not a simple task at all. ;)   

It is well within our means. We have expert programmers on this list.

> Harvesting emails alone is not responsible for 1 single spam.

Yes. You are correct. Um, after the emails are harvested, the emails are 
organized and someone writes a message and pushes send.

> My
> arguments have been that obfuscation only inconveniences normal folks,
> rarely spammers. 

Really? How many times have you pulled email addresses out of the archives to 
contact . . . . .(oh shoot, he will say that *he* does it "everyday").  :)

> I have yet to hear of one spammer who complains about
> obfuscation, but we do hear from them on other much more successful
> fronts.

It is so easy to slog, the spammers can collect thosands of emails in the time 
it takes to try to write the code to un-obfuscate email addresses.
Further, spammers know that the ROI is probably going to be a bit higher (and 
the flames a LOT lower) for email lists that are NOT blatantly anti-spam. 

Finally, geez. You know all of this.

I would ask you what your malfunction is, but it doesn't seem like to have a 
self-diagnostic program over there.

The Bottom Line:
Please have a big heart and let us *peacefully* obfuscate the email addresses 
in the archives.
-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com