elint ,

Interesting. That reminds me, I need to update one of my scripts.

+time.sleep(1.2)

cosmicrose ,
@cosmicrose@lemmy.world avatar

Speaking of a “black hole” email address, are there any addresses set up for the purpose of catching spam? Like if Gmail had an address for spam that contributed to its spam detection.

jadero ,

The Stalwart mail server allows for that. They call them "spam traps".

Basically, it's a real email address that literally never gets used or referenced anywhere, thus assuring any email received is unsolicited by definition. Stalwart's spam engine uses any such email to help train the spam filter.

I can't imagine that Stalwart is only one implementing such a system.

I've never used Stalwart, but it's the email server I've selected should I decide to do what everyone tells me I shouldn't: run my own server for me, my wife, and the two domains we control. Their documentation is basically a master class in email.

cosmicrose ,
@cosmicrose@lemmy.world avatar

“Spam trap” and “spam honeypot” are exactly the keywords to search for. I found a bunch of info about some services you can use to set them up. I’d recommend adding “-avoid” to your search filters because every email marketer has their own article titled “About Spam Traps and How to Avoid Them” which just pollutes search results if you’re actually looking to set up your own.

jadero ,

Thanks!

mark OP ,
@mark@programming.dev avatar

Wouldn't this effectively mark all messages from a user who isn't using JavaScript as spam? 🙃

borari ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

    •
    mark OP ,
    @mark@programming.dev avatar

    Yeah, it's definitely a very unique approach I haven't seen before. I've been using the "honeypot" method for years, which has been working surprisingly well.

    rebelsimile ,

    Apparently the rate of users not using JS is about 0.2% (and has been that way for 10 years), so just applying this solution the the large margins as he’s doing, I’d probably just make an alternate message saying “please enable javascript to contact me” and let that be that.

    mark OP ,
    @mark@programming.dev avatar

    Eh. These sorts of metrics aren't always accurate. And the source company did the study in 2016, which was a very very different internet, and doesn't go into detail about how they were able to determine this number. I would take that with a grain of salt. I agree that just having a notice somewhere is better than not, though.

    rebelsimile ,

    Sure, I was just curious and looked it up, that’s the first link I saw. I guess the question is — is it better to theoretically annoy real users who aren’t using JS (and how many are there) or is it better to frustrate and annoy lazy spammers (and how many are there?). On my own sites I really rarely get non-spam email. I’d be fine making a random 10-45 second timer on my contact forms doing this, no one needs to contact me in under 10 seconds on my websites.

    Blisterexe ,
    @Blisterexe@lemmy.zip avatar

    they could add a little text box thats hidden by javascript tby default informing them of that

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • webdev@programming.dev
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •