On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 06:39:29AM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
So you can explain why, in theory and in practice, obfuscation doesn't
work. But the user base will (stubbornly, if you like) refuse to
accept your logic.
As usual, Stephen hits the nail on the head.
I can't disagree with much
--On 29 August 2009 04:19:58 + Julian Mehnle jul...@mehnle.net wrote:
Bob Puff wrote:
That's the logical progression of that argument, and is the good reason
why obfuscation or even removal of parts is not only a good idea, its a
necessity. Exposing raw email addresses in their normal
--On 31 August 2009 10:15:43 -0700 C Nulk cn...@scu.edu wrote:
I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
going to go over like a lead balloon here.
Here, too. Our site would probably deploy some other mailing list software.
Anything (however minor) to
help
I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
going to go over like a lead balloon here. Anything (however minor) to
help protect the users/clients email addresses is helpful despite what
others think. It is fine if someone considers the obfuscation that
Mailman uses is
On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:21 AM, Jeff Breidenbach wrote:
Yes. It is critical to keep user perception in mind. Specifically,
if you
don't keep email addresses off the global search engines, there will
be a
deluge of vocal complaints from users who neither care about nor
understand
the
On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:10 AM, Bernd Siggy Brentrup wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 18:03 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
What I'm thinking is that there should be a send me this message
link in the archive, which gets you a copy as it was originally sent
to the list. That let's you jump into a
On Aug 29, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Barry Warsaw writes:
What I'm thinking is that there should be a send me this message
link in the archive, which gets you a copy as it was originally sent
to the list. That let's you jump into a conversation as if you'd
been
there
On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:15 PM, C Nulk wrote:
I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
going to go over like a lead balloon here. Anything (however minor)
to
help protect the users/clients email addresses is helpful despite what
others think. It is fine if someone
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Let's say I just joined the XEmacs development mailing list after a long
absence. I find a message in the archive from two years ago that is
relevant to an issue I'm having. I'd like to follow up to that message
using my normal mail toolchain, but I found the archive page
On Aug 31, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Dale Newfield wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Let's say I just joined the XEmacs development mailing list after a
long absence. I find a message in the archive from two years ago
that is relevant to an issue I'm having. I'd like to follow up to
that message using
Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 1:15 PM, C Nulk wrote:
I am pretty sure allowing the raw email addresses to be available is
going to go over like a lead balloon here. Anything (however minor) to
help protect the users/clients email addresses is helpful despite what
others think.
Barry Warsaw wrote:
Now I can hit 'reply' and inject myself seamlessly into that 2 year
old thread.
As long as the mailing list name/address hasn't migrated/changed in
the interim...
Good point.
...perhaps the original message munged to ensure current accuracy of
the to/cc/reply-to
On Aug 31, 2009, at 4:48 PM, David Champion wrote:
I'm going to embracing and extend something Barry suggested in
private mail. He suggested a list setting that permits signed-in
list subscribers to download raw archives if they have some
'archive-approved' status. What if that is a three-way
* On 31 Aug 2009, Barry Warsaw wrote:
Mailman will always still collect the raw data for messages sent to
the list. There are legitimate uses for allowing outsiders access
to that data (say, the list is moving and you want to migrate the
archives), so I think we always want to support
Barry Warsaw writes:
Let's say I just joined the XEmacs development mailing list after a
long absence.
Hey, welcome back! Do you plan to return to Supercite maintenance?wink
I find a message in the archive from two years ago that is relevant
to an issue I'm having. I'd like to
Barry Warsaw writes:
What I'm thinking is that there should be a send me this message
link in the archive, which gets you a copy as it was originally sent
to the list. That let's you jump into a conversation as if you'd been
there originally.
I don't understand. Do you mean the
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:57:06AM +0100, Ian Eiloart wrote:
There's recently published research which suggests that simple
obfuscation can be effective. Concealment, presumably, is more effective.
At http://www.ceas.cc/ you can download Spamology: A Study of Spam
Origins
On Aug 25, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
2) is more interesting. What kinds of uses are we talking about?
You
see a message in an archive from three years ago and you want to
contact the OP about it? Why not just follow up and contact the
mailing list?
For all the reasons
Something else that occurs to me.
If we accept that obfuscation is worthless and stop doing it, then
there's no reason we shouldn't make the raw mbox files available for
anyone to download. Mailman used to do this, but we removed the
feature due to user outcry. Now you can download the
. Sheesh.
Bob
-- Original Message ---
From: Barry Warsaw ba...@python.org
To: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
Cc: mailman-developers@python.org
Sent: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:46:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] Proposed: remove address-obfuscation code
from Mailman 3
Something else
the archives, but somehow Google found it, indexed it, and the guy
threatened
me with bloody murder if I didn't take it down.
Yes. It is critical to keep user perception in mind. Specifically, if you
don't keep email addresses off the global search engines, there will be a
deluge of vocal
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 18:03 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote:
What I'm thinking is that there should be a send me this message
link in the archive, which gets you a copy as it was originally sent
to the list. That let's you jump into a conversation as if you'd
been there originally.
Another use
--On 25 August 2009 21:02:01 + Julian Mehnle jul...@mehnle.net wrote:
Bob Puff wrote:
You are presuming too much on spammers as a whole. I've dealt with a
couple spammers, and they just used some tools they got online that
search for usern...@domain.something. Everything else is
On Aug 25, 2009, at 1:35 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Rich Kulawiec writes:
Pretending that address obfuscation in mailing list [or newsgroup]
archives will have any meaningful effect on this process gives
users a false sense of security and has zero anti-spam value.
You're missing the
Barry Warsaw writes:
2) is more interesting. What kinds of uses are we talking about? You
see a message in an archive from three years ago and you want to
contact the OP about it? Why not just follow up and contact the
mailing list?
For all the reasons why Reply-To Munging
Bob Puff wrote:
You are presuming too much on spammers as a whole. I've dealt with a
couple spammers, and they just used some tools they got online that
search for usern...@domain.something. Everything else is ignored.
I don't for a minute doubt that the advanced spammers will snag
26 matches
Mail list logo
