3 ms·

I think the idea of having a token in the address could work! Unless you’re being specifically targeted, it doesn’t need to be anything particularly long or se

I think the idea of having a token in the address could work! Unless you’re being specifically targeted, it doesn’t need to be anything particularly long or secure though—just needs to not fit the same pattern as everyone else. It could be as simple as “the letter before the first letter and the letter after the last letter” or something easy enough to generate in your head when filling out a paper form. (E.g., “hackernews@“ becomes “hackernews.gt@“; “google@“ becomes “google.ff@“) Or “numbers of vowels mod 10” (“facebook@“ becomes “facebook.4@“; “medium@“ becomes “medium.3@“). You could always combine this with option 2 as well. Anything that has a valid token goes through the regular filters, everything without goes straight to junk. … In fact, I think I’m going to do this for my own domain.

dspillett 2y ago
You're right, that is a good simplification of that option to make it less tech dependent: * Generate addresses with that process (that can be done in the head) * Programmatically verify the incoming addresses to filter junk/not (hopefully not difficult with postfix, just use the “standard” config-in-db setup with a stored procedure to do the mapping instead of a simple SELECT so you can check the checksum (in fact, it should be possible with a SELECT but I expect the syntax will be more messy that way)) * Still have a whitelist for addresses previously used, unless using a new sub-domain for this setup * Still send mismatches to a junk folder not /dev/null in case of mistakes I might go that way when I finally get around to rebuilding & migrating my mail server(s)…