I haven't gotten much lately, but when you get one - it's just not something that is productive in any way.
I have been suggesting it for some time, and am surprised many others haven't been. It is much nicer to press "ignore user". Suggestion #2 - Turn on or off Private Messages would be nice as well.Many others have suggested it over the years. The problem is I don't think TER figured out a way to allow people to ignore aliases without ignoring the handle the alias is attached to. At one time they tried and that basically outed people's handles. There has to be a way to ignore the alias without tying it to the handle.
It's "only" a matter of, most likely, a database redesign (really big $) and then a SMOP (could be big $). I expect the cost is why the change hasn't been made despite many requests.
And yes, I fully support this change. Too many users of aliases abuse them.
even if they didn't do anything wrong, just to out it. That could back fire.
Right now the "ignore" feature couples the PM system with the discussion boards. IOW when you hit "ignore user" you not only block that person's PM's but you also ignore his board posts, THAT of course is what makes it so easy to out an alias by using a simple method of trial and error to figure out what any given alias a poster is using
If TER were to decouple the PM system from the discussion board posts it would be virtually impossible to out an alias by systematically ignoring various users and alias posters.
I think the number of PMs would taper off greatly.
But here's a rather simple plan:
If a person gets a PM from an alias that they do not want to receive anymore, that person can notify TER and request that they contact the person who sent the PM and tell them in no uncertain terms that they are to cease and desist from sending the TER member any more PMs lest they be booted off the site.
No re-programming needed, just a little personal attention
They might as well change the system to handle this. It would likely cost less in the long run than a manual exception process, and would be more consistent.
And the upkeep / tracking would be ridiculous. This is a reason I don't like DM's or private emails. It's a huge cluster-fuck of confusion sitting and talking to Aliases. Not that it's required that we answer, but... it would just be nice to press "ignore" and be done with it - nobody in the middle.
So it seems that this has several moving parts. User ID - Alias and then PM from User - PM from Alias.
If the issue is to block the PM side why not just allow the user to create a list of filters where any match is simply dropped from (or just hidden) in the mail listing? That's not a huge code or DB change. Moreover, that would allow blocking of the alias without also blocking the User ID so the trial-and-error approach to expose the User ID-Alias relationship wouldn't work.
... but there would be coding involved, plus some database changes to support it.
Also, in order to let the sender know they're blocked, which happens today I believe, that would require some coding.
But probably less work than changing the database to make handles and aliases independent but associated entities.
Not sure about the need to DB changes -- other than perhaps some triggers which I'd lump into code changes. Then again, I don't have a clue what the database structure looks like so....
It could be implemented client side and not even have it really impact server performance. Not sure if that's really what the community would like - or TER in terms of error reports.
If they are letting people know they are blocked that should be reusable code (or perhaps an indication that for the next serious update they should review their code design 
. I wasn't aware of that -- so I guess that means I've not pissed anyone off enough (or said something stupid enough) to get blocked. Way to go me! That said, do we really need to tell someone they've been blocked. Might be more fun to leave them hanging