Have you ever replied to a message sent to you from someone via LinkedIn? If so, it's easy to end up sharing your e-mail address with that someone, and good chance that someone has leaked the address on somewhere - whether by copying into a contact manager in their e-mail and being compromised, or letting some site or other log in to their Linked In account.

  >>> Or a tool that just generates random
  >>> mail addresses ending with a popular
  >>> e-mail provider domain.

  >> The email to which I'm receiving viruses
  >> and spam is not of that form.

  > Have you ever replied to a message sent to
  > you from someone via LinkedIn? If so, it's
  > easy to end up sharing your e-mail address
  > with that someone ...

While what you say is true, it's a non-sequitur. It's possible that I have replied to someone, and it's possible that they leaked it, but that has nothing to do with classic dictionary attacks, and the fact that such is unlikely to have succeeded with the address that's been leaked.

Perhaps you intended to reply to a different comment.

Edit: To those who are down-voting this - thank you for the reality check. I don't understand why you think my comment is of negative value, but it reminds me that not everyone thinks the same way.

I said nothing about dictionary attacks. It's not a non-sequitur at all, the point was to offer another, alternative suggestion to how it might have happened.

And while I didn't downvote you, if I'd seen a reply like this to someone else, I might very well have done so rather than bother to reply, seeing as you've quoted three paragraphs just to dismiss a valid suggestion because you for some reason don't think it fits in this location in the thread.

  > I said nothing about dictionary attacks.

Indeed, and given that this particular exchange was talking about dictionary attacks, that is why I thought your comment was a non-sequitur. It didn't seem to follow naturally from the comments above, and seemed out of place, which is why I wondered if you really had intended to reply there.

  > It's not a non-sequitur at all, the point was
  > to offer another, alternative suggestion to how
  > it might have happened.

That was being done in other comments elsewhere. Again, that's why I thought your comment seemed misplaced in this particular branch, albeit absolutely correct.

  > And while I didn't downvote you, ...

I know that - you can't downvote a reply to one of your comments.

  > ... if I'd seen a reply like this to someone
  > else, I might very well have done so rather
  > than bother to reply, seeing as you've quoted
  > three paragraphs just to dismiss a valid
  > suggestion because you for some reason don't
  > think it fits in this location in the thread.

I didn't quote those comments to dismiss your contribution. Indeed, I said "... what you say is true ...". My quoting was to try to point out why I was wondering about the placement of your comment.

So to re-iterate, I didn't dismiss your comment, I just thought it would be better placed where others were already making the same or similar points. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer, and apologise.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

I can't understand the thought process behind the downvoting either. I'm assuming that some people aren't reading carefully, but just downvoting any negative tone (like these mild denials) on general principle.

Downvotes on HN have been approaching random lately. It doesn't mean anything.

Have you ever applied to a job and wanted the email to be different than the one who have listed?