[Wine] Re: Wine is very slow

[Daniel Skorka]

xyzzy1 at hotpop.com wrote:
> No, this is NOT true. If you look closely at the postings, you see any "@" 
> characters substituted with "at" and perhaps the "." by "dot".  That makes an 
> automatic harvester's job much much harder since there are no special 
> characters to find that signify an email address.
> 
> Unless the harvester knows the exact format of each archive posting and where 
> exactly the email address was, it would be pointless to try to harvest from 

How many commonly used mailing list programs do you think there are? I
bet only a few, each of which has it's own standard format for archives.
Also, you may have noticed that Pipermail puts your email address into
a 'mailto'. Yes, the @ gets replaced by ' at ', but if I were a spammer,
this would be exactly the kind of obfuscation I would look for.

> the archives that I have seen because the spammer's list would be peppered 
> with bogus addresses.

Do you really think a spammer cares how much bogus adresses he has to
try as long as he knows there are some valid ones among them?

Daniel