[iamben]

I'm interested. How does it differ from using:

[e-mail] or [e-mail]

...to figure out where the spam originated?

[buu700]

> [e-mail]

Just be aware that this may be very confusing to customer support agents: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32475178

[rsync]

FWIW, I have been using the [e-mail] auto-alias for many years now and I've never had it challenged nor rejected by a human or a machine.

[loloquwowndueo]

Everybody knows name+something@ maps to name@ so it’s trivial for bad actors to strip the plus part and just spam you directly, losing the per-correspondent distinction.

[homebrewer]

Which is covered by GP's second suggestion. I add short random password-like strings to these aliases to thwart spammers who might be trying obvious aliases, turning e.g [e-mail] into [e-mail]

[sans_souse]

In the latter specifically it doesn't differ except for the specific methodology and what we do with the results.