News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by natrius on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @02:00AM (#998268)
Spam hasn't been a problem for me for quite some time. I stopped obfuscating my email address years ago.
Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by Batsu on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @02:09AM (#998275)
I think that those of us who actually use email for communication and check it several times a day are simply numb to the pain.

At this point, I think I could spot a piece of spam tip-toeing through the brush at 300 yards.

Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by gojomo on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @02:06AM (#998273)
What works for you? How often and how closely do your check your spam folder(s) for false-positives?
Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by dflock on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @04:20AM (#998414)
I use Gmail to aggregate all my mailboxes. Gmail's spam folder keeps things for 30 days before deleting them. I've currently got 2965 spam emails in the spam folder - which is a little on the low side of my average. So, I get about 3000 spam emails in 30 days, or about 100 per day. Gmail's spam filtering is almost 100% effective, for me. I see maybe one, occasionally two, spam emails in my inbox per month, and have had maybe 3 false positives over the last couple of years. I very occasionally glance at the contents of the first page of the spam folder, just to be on the safe side, but like I said, I almost never find anything mis-filtered. For me this is good enough - I'm effectively shielded from all spam and don't really notice it as an issue.
Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by rimantas on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @04:44AM (#998444)
Exactly. I "outsourced" my spam management to GMail and I don't think I did ever try to obfuscate my email, they are all over the net :) My position is that one has to deal with spam by means invisible to end users—and that rules out CAPTCHA and email obfuscating.
Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by CrLf on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @10:44AM (#998962)
Never.

I used to quickly look through my spam folder in GMail and then flush it whenever it went above a certain amount of messages. Now I don't have that compulsion anymore, since there is an option to not display the unread count.

I just let the spam folder alone. If there is any false positive, and if it is important enough, the sender will most likely send another message and the probability of multiple false positives is lower.

Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by novum on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @03:03AM (#998331)
I read over every single spam (or at least the subject and first few lines of the body, via gmail) before deleting.

Yes, it's a lot. And yes, as Batsu said, I'm numb to the pain.

Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by nomoresecrets on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @07:23AM (#998632)
When I check my GMail spam folder, I get spams at about the rate of one per minute these days.

Filtering those manually became unworkable for me years ago.

I maybe see a spam in my inbox once a day. It goes up and down, as spammers find workarounds and then Google fix them.

The email address I use is 10+ years old though.

Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by gojomo on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @03:26AM (#998347)
I would consider that level of effort (and numbness) a "problem"; I'm especially curious how "no problem" natrius deals.
Re:Gravatars: why publishing your email's hash is not a good... by wlievens on Wednesday December 16, 2009 @03:37AM (#998360)
How many do you get per day? I get about fifty.