Re: #1093

[Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Russ Allbery wrote:
 
>> Except that "news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is not likely to be visibly
>> plastered all over Usenet and the Web, ready to be scraped by spammers
>> (as "abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" might well be).
 
> Right, that's why postmaster so rarely gets spam.
> (In case it's not obvious, I'm being extremely sarcastic.)

postmaster@, webmaster@, and abuse@ are among the local parts I consider
as "potentially valid", therefore it won't directly go to a junk folder.

The spam to these addresses is very rare, I don't recall a single case
of postmaster@ in the last 500,000 mails.  For webmaster@ it's not so
good, but a smart harvester could find this address if it follows the
<meta rev="made" href="http://putl.net/xyzzy/mailto/webmaster"; /> links
on my pages, and if it also knows the %40 trick.

Frank