We seem to always hear about the terrible shortage of engineers and related fields, so how is it that recruiters add any value?
I have never taken a position where a recruiter contacted me first. I've never even done an interview in that situation because they always see to be shotgunning jobs at everyone they possibly can - email costs nothing so why wouldn't they? I have always found a job rather than been found by the recruiter.
Monster.com and LinkedIn seem to be wretched hives of scum and villainy. The best advice I can give is to never use any "service" that makes it possible for everyone, without qualification or your explicit permission, to contact you. Build your personal networks. Apply for the jobs you want. You won't be losing anything. I never had a Monster.com presence but I did have LinkedIn - since removing it I have lost nothing but unsolicited contacts from recruiters who want me to look at jobs I don't want, and then for me to give up the contact details of anyone else I might know...
There are a few recruiters I like and trust, but the ones spamming like this need to be spoken to very sternly indeed.
There doesn't have to be an agent relationship. I guess what I am really saying is that the only recruiters worth talking to are the ones that do the work to find the best fit for both parties. The rest add nothing.
Can someone explain to me why it is necessary to have the entire webpage refuse to render (white page (with scrollbar, "amusingly" enough)) if JS is disabled?
Whatever happened to progressive enhancement? Say... Actually using HTML and CSS? Maybe converted from markup on the server, or when the post is created?
There are any number of reasons not to do things this way, and any number of alternatives that have advantages over this.
Even being told that they have the wrong address seems to be no deterrent for some recruiters. One day soon, even the richest YC alumni are going to be eclipsed by whoever figures out how to disintermediate these pricks into oblivion.
The issue here I think is that the average mail user needs some kind of filtering language to control their own inboxes.
There is no standardized way to do this, which is a shame. I would really like for their to be a standardized server-side mail filtering language for mail services, where you can take your rule set from one mail server to another.
Personally, I have my own mail server and it has it's own mail filter system and language, but I am not always on the command line with my mail client to modify those filters.
Outlook, Thunderturd/Seamonkey, and other clients have some client-side rules, but those rules don't work if my desktop is offline I am reading those messages on my phone.
I hope in the future well-regarding developers who don't have a private interest will take a look at email again and make the improvements needed to continue to support this standard communication format.
Egos and private-self interest is not what made the internet great, but there is little shortage of it these days amongst us. Where will the Tim Berners-Lees, Richard Stallmans, John Postels of the future come from? These people didn't get rich. We did.
I don't agree. No one said it had to be on the same domain as ones regular address. Sign up for a new account with Gmail or Yahoo or any of the others. Use that address when filling out a "please spam me" form. Check it for a while. Then forget it when its usefulness ends.
This is great even if you have hosted email. But it's even better if you run your own mail server. I now have dozens of sold/leaked/stolen addresses that all feed directly into my spam trainer. Anything sent to the stolen addresses not only gets junked, but helps prevent any other address from getting spammed.
What I do instead is this: I have a subdomain of my regular domain, say "me.example.com." That subdomain is a catch-all; anything sent to it goes to my regular account at "example.com," though I have a Sieve rule to filter those messages to their own folder. Companies and so forth get addresses like firstname.lastname@example.org or, if I'm giving one in person, email@example.com so it doesn't seem odd.
At that point, they can't tell the difference between that being a tagged address or not, so the entire address has to be sent untouched. I can then do whatever I like with it, namely trashing the message in a rule. Using a subdomain is preferable for keeping the generic spam down since those aren't as easily discovered.
I considered going even further and building something where I'd register each new address as I gave it out, but for now, just adding a tag on to my regular address has been good enough for me.
The delimiter character on one system is a legitimate component on another, so stripping like that will fix some addresses but break others. Could they increase their total address count by 0.2% trying to strip tags? Possibly. Is it worth the effort? I doubt it. People who tag addresses are also the most likely to report spam and raise a ruckus.
Increasingly, I simply use mailinator for throwaways (and, of course, don't provide personal information).
But yeah, throwaway email addresses are another good solution for some use cases. It doesn't cover everything, though. A lot of my spamtrap addresses are non-throwaway ones, where I actually want to stay in touch with the company. E.g., Adobe's compromise a while back.
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Every one will be sent to the username "example"