On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jonas Smedegaard - [email protected] wrote: > On 12-03-13 at 01:37pm, > [email protected] wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Jonas Smedegaard - [email protected] wrote: >> > On 12-03-13 at 12:00pm, >> > [email protected] wrote: >> >> I have received a solicitation to help transfer a large sum of >> >> money to the U.S. from our troops in Iraq. I already understand >> >> this is a phishing SPAM message. The only reason I post this is >> >> the address used was only available in the archives of >> >> [email protected], because I use a >> >> whitelist relay for all my email which allows me to use a unique >> >> address for all my correspondence. >> >> >> >> Perhaps the list archive could have better obfuscation of the >> >> addresses than the form "user at domain.tld"? Surely that is just >> >> as easy to scan for as "[email protected]". I've seen other >> >> obfuscations such as "user at doma..." on other lists. Perhaps >> >> someone could implement such an obfuscation here? >> > >> > Please don't obfuscate - that hurts users but less so spammers: >> > Schemes easy for users to figure out are easy for spammers to figure >> > out too. >> >> If one is concerned about privacy, why would one want ANY reader of >> the archive to be able to deduce one's address? > > Because one can be concerned about privacy without supporting anonymity. > > Also, one can be concerned about privacy yet favor transparency over > privacy for some situations - e.g. software development. > > In Debian we expect all participants to have an identity. You are free > to operate under a pseudonym, if you prefer. But anonymity we cannot > provide you.
I do not seek anonymity. I seek reciprocity. Harvesters seek value without exchange. In their case, I seek to increase the cost of doing business. I agree this entails a cost to those with whom I do seek exchange. I perceive that as a question of balance. Apparently, you wish a different balance point than I do. I respect that. >> > Not some other archive somewhere? >> >> Some other archive would most likely be a copy of the archive >> maintained by the list server. Thus an obfuscation at the server will >> be an obfuscation of any copy. It is possible for a bot to subscribe, >> but that is a higher cost approach. > > It is less costly and more reliable for an independent competitive > web-archives-for-public-lists service to subscribe rather than scrape > the canonical web representation of the archive. I will take this as a more informed opinion than my own. Thank you for your contribution to my growth. > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
