From: rra@stanford.edu 
  
 Bruce Murphy  writes: 
  
 > Frankly, increasing numbers of places offer something like tagged email 
 > addresses, and once you /have/ set something like that up with a 
 > specific USENET address, it's actually pretty easy to set up extremely 
 > effective filters, since USENET replies will have a fairly specific 
 > form. 
  
 Yeah, I posted something about that a long time back to the net-abuse 
 groups and even wrote a test implementation, where all messages addressed 
 to a particular address were rejected unless the message contained a 
 References or In-Reply-To header containing a particular message ID 
 pattern.  I personally have other ways of dealing with spam and therefore 
 never bothered to implement it for myself, but it seemed like a fairly 
 obvious idea five years ago.  I'm surprised it never seemed to gain any 
 traction. 
  
 Note that one big problem with tagged addresses is that a lot of them just 
 add something onto one's main mailbox.  That's exactly the wrong way to do 
 it, since of course spammers routinely just strip the tags.  The right way 
 to do tagged addresses is to post from rra+usenet@stanford.edu, have 
 rra@stanford.edu bounce or go through very aggressive spam filtering, and 
 have one's personal inbox be rra+xqr or something else equally 
 unguessable. 
  
 -- 
 Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)              
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)