Subscribe to
NSLog(); Header Image


If you browse on over to you'll be told to include one of two URLs in your email because:

Over time, if the idea catches on, spam filters will be trained to recognize emails containing the or link as legitimate. So, you will be able to increase your chances of getting an email through spam filters if you include it.

Spammers will be tempted to include it in their emails, of course, in order to evade the filters.

But then they will be introducing their targets to this page, which lists antispam software and services. If it catches on end result will be a balance, where some spammers use it anyway, and many legitimate users will include it in their emails.

Uhhh, right. These people are what I'd call "clueless" because a spammer can easily include the URL. Case in point? <!-- -->. Most of my spam is HTML, and as such, a commented-out URL will still be parsed by most (every?) spam filter, but won't be seen by anyone but the most severe geeks with too much time on their hands. Another way spammers could include it without exposing it to their targets: include it somewhere in the headers - most people don't examine those either.

3 Responses to "TheyCantStopSpam"

  1. Modern spam filters either ignore comments or penalize the message for having them. Many filters also treat the contents of the headers differently from the message body.

  2. Like many people in many instances, you haven't bothered to take the time to understand what you're criticizing. In many cases this is because the act of getting an ego-boost through criticizing is more important to them than understanding is.

    Be that as it may, the exact subject you bring up is explicitly addressed at the bottom of the page you're referring to. IOW, RTFM.

    The next response of the typical person described in the first paragraph is a reflexive, "but that isn't possible, you're an idiot". Actually if you took the time to think it through, you'd see that the solution probably is within reach by leveraging existing rendering code. But it won't happen unless a critical mass of people start using the URL, which is unlikely to happen. So the web page in question is just an interesting (to some) experiment.

  3. Uhhh, thanks for your "insight" Gary, but you're wrong on several accounts. "Ego boost?" Bzzzzt. Wrong. "Addressed at the bottom of the page?" No it's not.

    I applaud you for trying, Gary, but quite simply put: your way won't work. That's not "wrong" or "right" - it's a prediction. It ain't gonna work.

    Glad that you get off on passing judgment on people, though. I tend to stick to trying to say what I think about ideas and products, not the people behind them.