sgopus said:
Posting your correct e-mail is a mistake, now you will loads of spam and
filth.
Posting your correct email address is not a mistake. Choosing an email
service provider that does not give you control over what messages get
rejected at SMTP time is a mistake. All good spam antispam
measures must do a few things to be considered effective in the real
world:
1) Minimize the number of false-positives generated. Any anti-spam
measure is not supposed to treat legitimate email as spam.
2) Minimize the number of false-negatives generated. Any anti-spam
measure is not supposed to treat spam as legitimate email.
3) Never place stumbling blocks in the way of users. No anti-spam
measure should ever require additional effort on the part of the
sender.
Munging email addresses in email and news posts fails on all three
points soundly.
1) Munging considers all email spam regardless of content or source.
2) Munging assumes anybody able to replace an email address is not a
spammer.
3) Munging is a potentially insurmountable stumbling block for end
users, especially if there is no way to unmunge the address in
question.
So, the correct solution to the problem you're trying to solve? Shop for
email service provider that gives you control over what content and
sources you're willing to accept from at SMTP time. Undesirable
content gets rejected at the mail server, you get everything else.