Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
Benjamin Scott writes: According to their FAQ, they keep mail indefinitely. They say they only keep the most recent 3000 msgs in data or thread indexes; is that what you mean? Or are they not working as advertised? All I know is that I could only look back 196 days at that instant. If the email isn't indexed, then it is as good as lost AFAIK. --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
Kevin D. Clark writes:
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This appears to be the main stumbling block. Mailman has an e-mail
address obfuscation feature but it's very sad ('user at domain'). If
I were writing a harvester I think I'd throw in the 1-line regex to
fix these so it's not really a worthwhile countermeasure. I'm looking
at what it would take to have Mailman just remove the e-mail address
(display only the 'real name') or only show the user-part if there's
no 'real name' provided so the offer is DOA unless I get that fixed.
I wrote a program that did most of this and posted this to the list a
while ago. Unfortunately, I don't have my personal archive with me
right now. Anybody? Otherwise I'll try to retreive this tonight.
Apologies if you get this more than once. I sent this out last night
but I haven't seen it get delivered yet.
This program is a filter that strips out email addresses. I hope that
this program can be useful in addressing our current issue.
To: gnhlug-discuss
Subject: Re: I HATE SPAM (was Re: Mouse swapping on a laptop)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin D. Clark)
Date: 04 Aug 2003 08:52:30 -0400
I vote that we:
1: Not require people to strip email addresses from the headers and
body of posts. This is too much work. Humans shouldn't have to
do this.
2: Keep the archive going, keep it world-accessible
3: Obfuscate email addresses in the web-archives. Many, many lists
that I am on do this already -- it makes sense.
WRT (3) above, I propose that we either configure our web-archiver to
do this (if it already does this), or else we just do this ourselves.
To this end, I have written (***) a Perl filter that does this
automagically. This filter could be used to filter our existing
archives, or it could be used from a procmail script inside the
web-archiving box in order to obfuscate all future postings.
*** This is basically Jeff Friedl's well-known email regexp, combined
with around 3 lines of my own code at the bottom.
Regards,
--kevin
--
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think ``I know,
I'll use regular expressions.'' Now they have two problems.
-- Jamie Zawinski
#!/usr/bin/perl
# Program to build a regex to match an internet email address,
# from Chapter 7 of _Mastering Regular Expressions_ (Friedl / O'Reilly)
# (http://www.ora.com/catalog/regexp/)
#
# Optimized version.
#
# Copyright 1997 O'Reilly Associates, Inc.
#
# Some things for avoiding backslashitis later on.
$esc= ''; $Period = '\.';
$space = '\040'; $tab = '\t';
$OpenBR = '\['; $CloseBR = '\]';
$OpenParen = '\('; $CloseParen = '\)';
$NonASCII = '\x80-\xff'; $ctrl= '\000-\037';
$CRlist = '\n\015'; # note: this should really be only \015.
# Items 19, 20, 21
$qtext = qq/[^$esc$NonASCII$CRlist\]/; # for within ...
$dtext = qq/[^$esc$NonASCII$CRlist$OpenBR$CloseBR]/; # for within [...]
$quoted_pair = qq $esc [^$NonASCII] ; # an escaped character
##
# Items 22 and 23, comment.
# Impossible to do properly with a regex, I make do by allowing at most one
level of nesting.
$ctext = qq [^$esc$NonASCII$CRlist()] ;
# $Cnested matches one non-nested comment.
# It is unrolled, with normal of $ctext, special of $quoted_pair.
$Cnested = qq
$OpenParen# (
$ctext*# normal*
(?: $quoted_pair $ctext* )*# (special normal*)*
$CloseParen # )
;
# $comment allows one level of nested parentheses
# It is unrolled, with normal of $ctext, special of ($quoted_pair|$Cnested)
$comment = qq
$OpenParen # (
$ctext* # normal*
(?: # (
(?: $quoted_pair | $Cnested )# special
$ctext* # normal*
)* #)*
$CloseParen #)
;
##
# $X is optional whitespace/comments.
$X = qq
[$space$tab]*# Nab whitespace.
(?: $comment [$space$tab]* )*# If comment found, allow more spaces.
;
# Item 10: atom
$atom_char = qq/[^($space)\@,;:\.$esc$OpenBR$CloseBR$ctrl$NonASCII]/;
$atom = qq
$atom_char+# some number of atom characters...
(?!$atom_char) # ..not followed by something that could be part of an atom
;
# Item 11: doublequoted string, unrolled.
$quoted_str = qq
\ #
$qtext *# normal
(?: $quoted_pair $qtext * )*# ( special normal* )*
\
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
On Jan 23, 2005, at 22:30, Kevin D. Clark wrote: One thing that this highlights, to me, is that the archives to this mailing list still aren't available online. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Text: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: wpmcgonigleSkype: bill_mcgonigle ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 23, 2005, at 22:30, Kevin D. Clark wrote: One thing that this highlights, to me, is that the archives to this mailing list still aren't available online. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html The archives from mail-archive.com are regularly purged, and in fact only go back to 196 days at this instant. Regards, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:03, Kevin D. Clark wrote: The archives from mail-archive.com are regularly purged, and in fact only go back to 196 days at this instant. Ah, bugger. I could mirror the list on my server, I already have mailman setup for DLSLUG and sufficient free disk space. Does anybody have historical mbox files? -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Text: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: wpmcgonigleSkype: bill_mcgonigle ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
If anyone wants to suggest an archiver/web frontend, I can set it up on my server; I can afford to store at least a few hundred meg of archives, probably even a gig. --DTVZ Note: As anyone I've replied to has probably noticed, I usually send the email intended for the list to an individual before I realize what I've done, and then forward it to the list as I originally intended. On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:03:08 -0500, Kevin D. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Jan 23, 2005, at 22:30, Kevin D. Clark wrote: One thing that this highlights, to me, is that the archives to this mailing list still aren't available online. http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html The archives from mail-archive.com are regularly purged, and in fact only go back to 196 days at this instant. Regards, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:48, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Some folks on this list are *very* concerned with their email
addresses appearing on a web-accessible archive (they don't want to
give anything to the spammers). I share this concern, although I
think that there are folks on this list who are more adamant about
this than I am. I am more interested in making the collective wisdom
of this list available for others to gain from. Still, any mail
archive should have an email-address obfuscating feature, in order to
satisfy this (reasonable) request.
This appears to be the main stumbling block. Mailman has an e-mail
address obfuscation feature but it's very sad ('user at domain'). If I
were writing a harvester I think I'd throw in the 1-line regex to fix
these so it's not really a worthwhile countermeasure. I'm looking at
what it would take to have Mailman just remove the e-mail address
(display only the 'real name') or only show the user-part if there's no
'real name' provided so the offer is DOA unless I get that fixed.
Removing X-No-Archive messages should be a 10-line formail/procmail
script, but if anyone has one done please send it along.
The trouble with the password-protected archives is that they don't add
to the general knowledge-base of the 'net. There's alot of great
content from lots of smart folks here and it's a shame not to share it.
I'm curious - is there anyone here who expects total privacy with the
address they use to post here? If I were a spammer I'd subscribe to
every list I could find via mailman,et.al. interfaces; we don't
validate lurkers here, right? I'm not arguing for showing the
addresses in the archive at all - just asking if there's a witness
protection program expectation here, that is if having your 'real name'
but not your e-mail address exposed to the Internet would cause a
problem. I'm ignoring the mail-archive.com archive for the sake of the
academic question.
-Bill
-
Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440
BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606
http://www.bfccomputing.com/Text: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM: wpmcgonigleSkype: bill_mcgonigle
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
I'm curious - is there anyone here who expects total privacy with the address they use to post here? If I were a spammer I'd subscribe to Hahahaha. :-( I wish I had a nickel for everytime the email privacy/mail archive/etc issue was rehashed beaten to death. You could look in the archives for the history. Seriously, if you can remove all email addresses from the archive, I'd bet you'd solve 90% of the problems people have with creating an archive. The other 10% will beat the topic to death with (a few) real and (many many many ) hypothetical situations until you give up in frustration. A way around this might be a poll that put the archive idea to a vote, then go with the majority. Then put that in the charter so we can end these debates by pointing at the charter. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Jan 24, 2005, at 12:48, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
Some folks on this list are *very* concerned with their email
addresses appearing on a web-accessible archive (they don't want to
give anything to the spammers). I share this concern, although I
think that there are folks on this list who are more adamant about
this than I am. I am more interested in making the collective wisdom
of this list available for others to gain from. Still, any mail
archive should have an email-address obfuscating feature, in order to
satisfy this (reasonable) request.
This appears to be the main stumbling block. Mailman has an e-mail
address obfuscation feature but it's very sad ('user at domain'). If
I were writing a harvester I think I'd throw in the 1-line regex to
fix these so it's not really a worthwhile countermeasure. I'm looking
at what it would take to have Mailman just remove the e-mail address
(display only the 'real name') or only show the user-part if there's
no 'real name' provided so the offer is DOA unless I get that fixed.
I wrote a program that did most of this and posted this to the list a
while ago. Unfortunately, I don't have my personal archive with me
right now. Anybody? Otherwise I'll try to retreive this tonight.
[snip]
The trouble with the password-protected archives is that they don't
add to the general knowledge-base of the 'net. There's alot of great
content from lots of smart folks here and it's a shame not to share it.
You and I agree 100% here.
[snip]
Regards,
--kevin
--
GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd
alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit
-- Tom Waits
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:44:52 -0500, Tom Buskey wrote: snip A way around this might be a poll that put the archive idea to a vote, then go with the majority. Then put that in the charter so we can end these debates by pointing at the charter. I'd like the archive. However, would gmane be a better alternative? http://www.gmane.org/ -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 03:44:52PM -0500, Tom Buskey wrote: Seriously, if you can remove all email addresses from the archive, I'd bet you'd solve 90% of the problems people have with creating an archive. I'm pretty sure I've historically been the most vocal complainer, and I've followed the arguments pretty closely. I can say that - I have no problem whatever with archives existing - I have no problem with /my/ posts being archived [but see below] - I do not feel that any such archive need be protected by passwords My one single objection has always been to the fact that my e-mail address appears in a public forum which is very easy to harvest, and that this unquestionably leads to an inflation of received spam (i.e. at the mail server, before any filtering). This includes cases of my e-mail address being included in attributions and quotes in other people's posts, which I have no control over. The above 3 statements are true, PROVIDED all references to my e-mail address are removed before inclusion in any such archive. As things stand, purely from the standpoint of self-interest, I no longer care about this issue. The reason for that is the address with which I post is not a valid e-mail address. Mailman allows for certain tricks which facilitate this. From the perspective of my view of how things should be in the universe, I do still think that the archive should not be established unless references to e-mail addresses are removed. However for obvious reasons, I no longer feel the need to argue the point quite so vocally. Actually, I'd like to see this behavior on the physical messages which are sent out by the mailing list software to the subscribers also; but I'm not even going to go there... The other 10% will beat the topic to death with (a few) real and (many many many ) hypothetical situations until you give up in frustration. Based on my recollection of the discussions, I believe removing addresses will remove much closer to 100% of the complaints. -- Derek D. Martinhttp://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers. pgpDuzwbIwecy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, at 12:03pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg08582.html The archives from mail-archive.com are regularly purged, and in fact only go back to 196 days at this instant. According to their FAQ, they keep mail indefinitely. They say they only keep the most recent 3000 msgs in data or thread indexes; is that what you mean? Or are they not working as advertised? -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
mail archives (was: Another ACPI anecdote, plus footnotes)
Bill Sconce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: We've had threads here previously about ACPI. [1] [2] [3] A very informative post. I found all of this to be very interesting. Thanks for sharing. It seems like you did quite a bit of research into this problem. One thing that this highlights, to me, is that the archives to this mailing list still aren't available online. So, a non-subscriber to this list who encounters the same problem that you encountered won't be able to make use of your excellent summary or the other interesting posts related to this topic on the GNHLUG list. --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
