That's actually a very unadvisable scheme. By doing this you make yourself a target. If any one of those are compromised, attackers will attempt to try that against a lot of popular sites (including banks). If you have your own domain (which I assume you do based on your scheme), I suggest not doing this. You would be better off coming up with a random account name for each and using a password manager to keep track of these.

FYI, I used to do this too. And this is how (in a similar fashion) Mat Honan got Gizmodo's Twitter and his iCloud and Gmail accounts hacked and also had his computer remotely wiped because he used his name in every domain/service as his account name or email account name.

Edited for more information.

The key motivation is not security, but if any account starts receiving spam, I will have a good idea where it is coming from. It also lets me shut off mail from any source.

Some services will use that as the username, others allow me to pick my own. Using a password manager helps this whole scheme. Now that I do that, I could go to random email addresses and usernames.

The only problem I've found with this method is the spammers that try to guess your email, so they end up sending emails to "[email protected]", "[email protected]", etc. The catch-all forwards them all to me.

The only way around this, I think, is to only have uncommon emails, like instead of [email protected], use [email protected]. Put a block on the common ones and you're good to go.

It's not that spammers try to guess your email, but that if you accept any email address as valid they'll notice that you are accepting delivery.

Once i figured this out i just created wildcard aliases that end with a static prefix: [email protected], [email protected], etc. This cuts down on 99% of the random spam.

regrettably this is against RFC 2142[1], which states that you need to leave certain mailboxes open (such as abuse@domain, webmaster@domain etc)

[1] - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2142.txt

Quite ironic, isn't it, how "[email protected]" is a conduit for abuse?

Spammers effectively killed that RFC.

>By doing this you make yourself a target. If any one of those are compromised, attackers will attempt to try that against a lot of popular sites (including banks).

And if you use the same email for everything (as is the alternative), attackers can attempt to try that against popular sites. So I don't see the downside of this method?

The real key is to not use the same email address across accounts. If you have your own domain, then it's easy.

I actually don't like the idea of using email addresses as user IDs. I believe that was a lazy approach in the first place and this causes too many problems. I'm sure it all started that way because someone wanted your contact info, and since the only way to guarantee a valid email was to make you verify it. It has nothing to do with security.

Nobody said security was easy or convenient.

Anyway, to each his own. I have my own domains and do, unfortunately, have about 100 email addresses/aliases. Yeah, it can be inconvenient to maintain. I originally started using the aliases because I wanted to know who was giving out my email to spammers. I caught a few and stopped doing business with them.

If someone is directly targeting you, then yes it's an issue (but even so, it's less of an issue than using exactly the same email address for all of your accounts).

In a mass compromise like the Adobe one, it's highly unlikely that the hackers are going to go out of their way to attack people who use this method when there's millions of much easier targets already in their list.

Using this approach also makes it a lot easier to spot spam - if I get an email to "[email protected]" claiming to be from my bank, it's highly unlikely to be genuine. If it's coming to "[email protected]", there's at least a fair chance that it's real - I still treat it with a fair amount of caution, but as I've filtered out the obvious junk I can spend more time checking out these reasonably genuine-lookuing one. Using a random email like [email protected] would make this quick filtering a lot harder.

the downside is that using random accounts on your domain requires a catch-all email rules on your server (unless you add each address by hand, but frankly that's too much of a hassle)

I never use a catch-all. Deleting email would quickly exceed available time.

I go through the trouble of creating a new email each time. I've considered writing a script to make it easier, but my current mail provider makes that difficult.

catchall FTW

I follow the following pattern with websites:

If the website is important (ex. government), I use <sitename><4_numbers>@<private_domain>. My filtering rules are extremely strict, and every mail that doesn't come from the expected website gets automatically flagged as spam and deleted. If their DB leaks, I just change the 4 numbers.

If I know the website and it's not an startup, I use <sitename>@<public_domain>, ex. [email protected]. My filtering rules only flag the messages as "maybe spam" when the sender is not in my contacts. If their DB leaks, I change the filter from "maybe spam" to "spam".

If it's a website I don't know, or a startup, I use <full_domain>@<publc_domain>, ex. [email protected]. I don't filter them, but if I start getting spam, I just simply set the email as an alias to my wormhole (an account I never check that flags anything it receives as spam).

If it's a spam blog, or a website that forces me to create an account by no apparent reason, I just use the wormhole address.

This seems way too difficult to manage.

I wish there was a Gmail like application that anyone could set up easily on its server and that would allow for : quick email generation.

You need to sign up to something ? Generate a quick mail that redirects automatically to your main inbox and that you can give away when signing up.

If you see that spam is arriving on this email, remove it.

[email protected] Goes to the inbox of user baby

I already know this trick and don't use it because :

* it's easy to get the real email address from it.

* most sign up form don't accept the "+" sign.

That seems like a lot of overhead to manage. Also, you're going to have a bad day if a spam bot decides to spam thousands of <common_user_name>@yourdomain.com. Maybe that's fallen out of practice, but I've seen it happen before.

Not really, in this year I had changed only 1 filter, the initial setup may be cumbersome, but the end result is worth the effort.

And about the spam to random addresses, in 8 years the most extreme problem I had faced is spam to censored addresses like [email protected] (thanks google code).

It's a tried and true spamming tradition and it's going strong. I see plenty of entries like

    Envelope-to: <[email protected]> 

in my reject log. Addresses that were never used anywhere. Some things just refuse to die.

This is brilliant, thanks for sharing.

Same here, with completely randomized passwords 60 chars long and different emails. IM INVISIBLE!

60 chars passwords probably reach the char limit imposed by many different services.

Might not want to give away your exact password length publicly.

Considering that's 394 bits of entropy, I think rfnslyr might get away with it.

unless it's >= 60

Don't worry, it was yet another trick.

How many proxies are you behind? :)