Frank Ellermann wrote:
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.
Aren't you arguing a logical fallacy: "Good enough for me, so must be good enough for everyone."? Today's batch of email: Checked: 1139 BCC: 250 NewUCE: 520 SpamCatch: 886 RepeatUCE: 395 Disposed: 915 At least 38 of those were to webmaster@. Which to my knowledge appears nowhere. So as far as I know, it wasn't harvested. Let 2142 pretend what it wants. We don't need to go along.