You think extremely similar to me!!! For the sites that reject mailinator and its aliases, I give them a gmail address that literally has the word spam in it, just as yours does. But I just check it for any registration I need to confirm, I don't forward it to my main account. But it literally has the word spam in it, just like your spam gmail :) Interestingly, I've never once had any site reject that due to having the word spam in it - but maybe because it's my second-tier possibility only for use on sites that reject mailinator. I thought it would be likely that some sites would reject it for that reason, but I just haven't had that issue.

What you've written:

>Perhaps Google could make this process simpler by allowing autogenerated email addresses that feed into the real primary email without the user having to create a second email address.

Is precisely what I suggest. Specifically, all of the current me+comment@gmail.com (which feeds this email address to the me@gmail.com email address, marking it with your comment)should be kept, it's just that instead of giving Bob's Spam Factory the email address "me+bobspam@gmail.com" I first request a high-entropy version of "me+bobspam", and get something similar to your suggestion:

>ezJVoWkJFBPvMm98xhOUsi7X52l06RNblLXhhCFse3nwdkpCW7VUkIO7zgJqQDd@gmail.com

and give Bob's Spam Factory that address instead. Then Bob's Spam Factory can't just take out the part after the + to get my primary email address.

However, you do not need 63 random characters in order not to worry about taking possibilities from someone!!! (Not even close).

Given a dictionary of 100,000 words, 3 random words have 100,000 * 100,000 * 100,000 = 1,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 quadrillion possibilities. It's vanishingly unlikely that anyone would ever pick the same strings. This is what I meant by "entropy" which is a technical term. To see this in action, consider that I came up with the "high-entropy" string squirehamboard for my example. I haven't checked yet, but it is extremely likely (99.99%) that I'm the first person to have ever written the words squireharmboard one after the other, and that if I hadn't written it, nobody would write it in the next thousand years (except exhaustively listing all possibilities, but I mean actually picking it or writing it by hand).

Let's check. Let's google squirehamboard: https://www.google.com/search?q=squirehamboard - as you can see, nobody in the history of the Internet has written that short phrase except me.

It's not the only example I had. I also listed in my original comment buffaloaerypyrite - again, it is extremely likely that I'm the only person to have ever written buffaloaerypyrite in the history of the Internet (I used a high-entropy free association method to come up with these words), and that if I hadn't written it, nobody would in the next thousand years. Let's check: https://www.google.com/search?q=buffaloaerypyrite

Again, I'm the only person to have ever used the string buffaloaerypyrite on the entire Internet in any context. (Of course, some web server could decide to exhaustively list all three-word possibilities, since my personal mental dictionary that I free-associated through to get the terms Buffalo, Aery, Pyrite, as well as Squire, Ham and Board, from does not have 100,000 words in it - I know more like a few thousand words personally.

It's possible for someone to list buffaloaerypyrite in a huge (multi-multi-terabyte) collection of passwords. But I don't quite require Google's handles to be as strong as passwords. They should just be long enough not to step on anyone's toes who are making real, normal email addresses.

In practice 3 random words from a huge dictionary is more than enough. In practice you will never have any conflict with any real email address anyone chooses.

But yeah, you get the basic idea. You just go overkill on the length of password that you think needs to be chosen :) 3 random words given by Google are more than enough...