[oblonsky]

Originally Posted by R Jones

On the question of dictionary attacks for email addresses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail_address_harvesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directory_harvest_attack
http://www.sophos.com/security/spam-...yharvestattack
http://geek.focalcurve.com/archive/2...ary-attack%20/

Obviously I can't comment on what caused the particular spam in question in the original post and did not do so.
Best wishes.

As I've been careful to say, I was questioning not dictionary attacks but your assertion about random alphanumeric strings. But as Mick points out this is OT so PM me.

If you re-read my original post that seemed for some reason to have caused so much controversy:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34...-post6037.html

I said "Phorm insist that they will respect robots.txt"

I heard them say that in one of Cpt. Jamie's videos. I saw it in Clayton. I had reasonable grounds to say exactly and precisely what I did.

Now I know what I said was maybe an unpopular view, and maybe the moderators will do the courtesy of re-reading my original post, but I really don't think copyright holders do have a very strong legal argument against Phorm *if* what Phorm say is correct and they provide one or more mechanisms for content owners to opt-out.

I also stand by my original assertion that *some* lawyers will argue for the premise of implied consent on published works.

I still don't support what Phorm are doing, so why this original post caused such a wave of anger from some posters which lead to me being cast in a demonic light is beyond me.