Where Do Dummy Email Addresses Go?

ajain writes "Maybe a year and a half back or so, I started using [e-mail] as a dummy email id in online blogs, guestboks, forums, and sundry pages. But then I started wondering what if someone actually tried to email me on that email address. I was sure that it would bounce because I assumed that there wouldn't be an actual email address like that. In any case, just for fun, I decided to google on [e-mail]. And lo behold, there are some 4090 results! I have written a small article at my blog and a reader says [e-mail] is another contender. Do you use some common dummy email IDs too, to get around the privacy problem online? Isn't there a potential for malicious misuse of someone's email ID in this way?"

Re:example.com?

[magefile]

If you go to example.com (or .org, .net) it'll tell you that it was set up as a dummy domain in some RFC for the express purpose of being used as an example: "so then you point your browser to example.com" that wouldn't be abusable. So go right ahead and use example.[com|org|net].

Re:Who else?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same line of thought I'm sending the SPAM at the best SPAM processing place:

[e-mail]

So that all the sites that send crap will think about it two times.

Re:fake email

[samhalliday]

thats the stupidist idea i have ever heard of!

the From: header can be easily forged and these privacy.net guys are just adding to the misuse of net traffic by replying.

spam should go to one of 2 places... an authority who can fine the sender, or /dev/null (preferably the mail server will reject the spam before even collecting it, such as grey listing does)

Re:Who else?

[Cat_Byte]

I usually use [e-mail]

That is so uncool. I used to work for an ISP and people like you slowed response time for real issues tremendously when we had to dig through tons of crap to find the real issues.

Network Solutions

[TheLink]

Maybe an address at networksolutions.com or netsol.com would be more appropriate, after all they want to be the destination for traffic to nonexistent domain names with their sitefinder crap.

Re:Technically, its illegal

[eric76]

1 - you are falsifying your identity with intent to deceive.

Is that really illegal if there is no fraud involved?

Provided that you don't use a real e-mail address, just who is harmed?

Re:No-risk, non-abusable

[magefile]

First, I didn't mean the .foo part. I meant the foo.com part. And yes, I was wrong. Shouldn't assume NetSol is right when it says a 3 letter domain is invalid. My bad.

what i've used...

[jrcsnet]

I've used [e-mail] for the longest time

[e-mail]

[Frambooz]

[e-mail]

works for me :)