|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
mct wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 06:11:22PM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > You're welcome to leave, taking whatever ball you have with you, but
> > I think you're being silly, since Mailman makes it very possible for
> > you to do exactly what you want (have your email address listed in
> > the archives NOT be reachable by spammers) without forcing that same
> > preference choice on others.
> >
> > As I already pointed out, you can subscribe from a garbage address,
> > turn mail delivery off for it in the Mailman interface, then post
> > from that address.
>
> Or, if you'd like to post to the list with a From: address you can't
> receive mail at but which easily identifies you when read by a human,
> send mail to plug-admin@phillylinux.org and I'll be happy to configure
> mailman to accept posts from you.
>
> For the record, I agree with the points Gabe has made earlier in the
> thread. Additionally, I'd rather not reconfigure the list archives to
> munge addresses because I don't believe simple munging ("mct -at- toren
> -dot- net") is an effective method of hiding from spammers, as it's
> trivial for a computer to reverse. It's possible to strip the addresses
> entirely ("mct@xxxx"), but that prevents someone viewing the archives from
> contacting the author. Furthermore, to be effective we'll need to modify
> both the headers and the bodies of messages (many people list their email
> address in their signature, or list the email address of the person
> they're responding to in their quote attribution line), and doing so will
> break GPG signatures.
>
> Jeffrey, I'm sorry you feel you need to unsubscribe from the list over
> this issue, and I hope you'll be able to post in the future using a
> munged address if it will make you more comfortable. Again, if you
> need help, please feel free to contact plug-admin@phillylinux.org.
I'm a little surprised you and GR feel this way, as the last couple
studies I've read suggest that simple munging is very effective in
preventing web harvesting of email addresses. One study suggested that
munging cut ~80% of spam on new email addresses. I'll see if I can
locate a reference.
The general consensus seems to be that email harvestors aren't bothering
to de-munge addresses (yet). Whether that will continue or not is
anyone's guess.
I posted this same comment here about 2-3 years ago after I had changed
jobs, received a new email address at work, subscribed to plug, and
started receiving a lot of spam shortly thereafter. I might have blamed
it on friends with infected windows PC's outside the company, but I
don't have many of them :)
--
Kevin
___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|