The addresses I list are mostly real contributors, and I list
them with the contribution, so there's at least a possibility
that someone might want to send them email about the topic.
My own email address is only listed in one place that I know of
as a mere "helper" -- in the snakebite FAQ on rec.backcountry.
That is, in a place where I haven't a chance of answering a
question that's not already answered in the FAQ. Over the four
or five years that address was valid, I think I got one email on
that topic. This does not seem to be a big problem.
I'm on a web page at pharminfo.com, and the email I get from that
link is mostly quite serious questions about diabetes. Naturally
I haven't the foggiest notion how often it's collected by
spambots, but "real" users seem to use it judiciously and not
frivolously. I've never received a "hi let's chat" email out of
the blue.
I refuse to spammunge my own address. Many people who come
looking for information on diabetes are new to the net and
scared -- scared for their health and scared of the net. The
last thing they need is to have to figure out how to modify a
spammunged address, when they don't even know a valid address to
start with. I might feel differently if I had reason to assume
they had some previous familiarity with the net, or at least
with computers. I also might feel differently if I got as much
spam as some FAQ maintainers report. I'll deal with the
relatively small amount of spam I get to help my audience
better.
In any case, I came to the conclusion some time ago that
legislation is the only way to stop spam. I've elected not to
spend my time fighting it directly, since I believe that will
fail. So why am I sitting here writing about it ...
Edward Reid