Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Le Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 03:16:53PM +0100, Jon Dowland a écrit : I personally agree. I don't bother munging my email address at all anymore, as I don't think it helps a great deal in the mid to long term, and it certainly detracts from the usefulness of an address. However if an upstream author of a package wishes to conceal their address, I think we should honour that. Hi all, I would like to remind you of a Windows virus which hit Debian users badly in the past. From infected machines, it was crawling web archives of Debian lists (maybe not on l.d.o), and extracting email adresses for sending megaoctets of emails containing a 300 Ko .exe file. Bandwidth was not so great at this time so even people on DSL were quite annoyed. Very surprisingly, it was quickly discovered that the virus was specifically avoiding the adresses in which the nospam keyword was found, were they legitimate or not. This example shows us that we should not look down on the people who use primitive address obsfucation techniques, they may have very good reason for. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... it was already clear that Ben's requests [for valid contact information of copyright holders] are pointless. On the contrary, the request has a clearly- and often-stated point: to reduce the risk accepted by the Debian project that a copyright statement might be invalid. Whether you think that point of the request is worthless, or unattainable, or otherwise, I've not yet seen you explain. But it's simply false to say it's pointless. -- \ People come up to me and say, 'Emo, do people really come up | `\ to you?' -- Emo Philips | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Ben Finney writes (Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file): I argue that the only fair place to draw the line is valid RFC 2821 email address. The alternative is to leave it to ongoing subjective judgement of unspecified Debian parties as to which addresses make sense or not â or to avoid the question of valid contact information altogether, as seems to be current practice. Yes, and that current practice is just fine. The whole point of having human beings do packaging is so that we can apply our judgement, interpersonal skills, and so forth. Ian.
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 2007-09-27 16:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package. This seems to be the point of disagreement. I think this should be required, in order that Debian users can have more confidence [0] in the copyright status of works in Debian. This is your goal. It's up to you to find a way to meet it while respecting the wishes of the upstream authors. If you can't, the wishes of the upstream authors take precedence and you don't distribute the package. Do we agree on that ? -- André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ Thanks to the Debian project for going to such lengths never to disclose the email addresses of their users. Think of all the spam we would get if they didn't ! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 10:13:39PM +0200, Andre Majorel wrote: On 2007-09-27 16:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package. This seems to be the point of disagreement. I think this should be required, in order that Debian users can have more confidence [0] in the copyright status of works in Debian. This is your goal. It's up to you to find a way to meet it while respecting the wishes of the upstream authors. If you can't, the wishes of the upstream authors take precedence and you don't distribute the package. Do we agree on that ? You don't distribute the package? Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben Finney on this mailing list are not representative of the views of the Debian Project or any of its members. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-27 16:39 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: I think [valid contact information for copyright holders at the time of packaging] should be required, in order that Debian users can have more confidence [0] in the copyright status of works in Debian. This is your goal. It's up to you to find a way to meet it while respecting the wishes of the upstream authors. The way seems fairly simple: Define a package without valid copyright-holder contact information as an unacceptable risk for Debian to take on behalf of its users. If you can't, the wishes of the upstream authors take precedence and you don't distribute the package. Do we agree on that ? I think we should respect the wishes of the upstream authors in the same manner as their license terms. We are already in the habit of encouraging upstream copyright holders to re-license their works under terms that pass the DFSG, rather than dropping the package without trying. I don't see why valid contact information of the copyright holder shouldn't be treated the same way. -- \ I have an answering machine in my car. It says, 'I'm home now. | `\ But leave a message and I'll call when I'm out.' -- Steven | _o__) Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben Finney on this mailing list are not representative of the views of the Debian Project or any of its members. With the caveat not *necessarily* representative, we agree on that. -- \ There's no excuse to be bored. Sad, yes. Angry, yes. | `\Depressed, yes. Crazy, yes. But there's no excuse for boredom, | _o__) ever. -- Viggo Mortensen | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Le vendredi 28 septembre 2007 à 13:49 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : You don't distribute the package? Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben Finney on this mailing list are not representative of the views of the Debian Project or any of its members. Oh, come on. You don't need to use the Anthony Towns argument, it was already clear that Ben's requests are pointless. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:40:39AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le vendredi 28 septembre 2007 à 13:49 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : You don't distribute the package? Ben Finney is not a Debian Developer. The views expressed by Ben Finney on this mailing list are not representative of the views of the Debian Project or any of its members. Oh, come on. You don't need to use the Anthony Towns argument, it was already clear that Ben's requests are pointless. Apparently at least one other reader of debian-devel was confused on this point. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
to, 2007-09-27 kello 10:21 +1000, Ben Finney kirjoitti: Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However if an upstream author of a package wishes to conceal their address, I think we should honour that. This is at odds with always have correct contact information for the copyright holder at the time of packaging, which I think Debian should strive to achieve for the sake of its users. I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: My full name is Lars Ivar Wirzenius, and you can send me e-mail by taking my initials and putting them in front of the at sign and iki.fi after it. Mind you, I don't like obfuscation, and I think it's a nuisance myself, but we shouldn't violate people's wish to try to avoid spam by publishing their addresses in un-obfuscated form. That only makes people angry at us for little or no benefit, since there are no situations when we want to automatically send e-mails to upstream developers anyway. The only way to honour conceal their address at the same time as the above is to not distribute the package at all. I don't think that's a good solution. I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package. -- Close your mind to stress and pain, hack till you're no longer sane. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package. This seems to be the point of disagreement. I think this should be required, in order that Debian users can have more confidence [0] in the copyright status of works in Debian. [0] not absolute confidence, of course, which is impossible; but greater confidence than would be the case in the absence of valid copyright holder contact details. -- \Program testing can be a very effective way to show the | `\presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing | _o__) their absence. -- Edsger Dijkstra | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Hi, On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:39, Ben Finney wrote: Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is any requirement to have any upstream contact information whatsoever in order to be able to distribute a package. This seems to be the point of disagreement. I think this should be required... Whether or not it its an requirement to be able to contact the author, doesnt have anything to do with obfuscating the email address or not. (Assuming its not obfuscated beyond recognitition.) (*) Unless you talk about the requirement to be able to contact the author without human intervention. But I haven't read anybody requiring that. And as Lars wrote in the email you replied to: Mind you, I don't like obfuscation, and I think it's a nuisance myself, but we shouldn't violate people's wish to try to avoid spam by publishing their addresses in un-obfuscated form. That only makes people angry at us for little or no benefit, since there are no situations when we want to automatically send e-mails to upstream developers anyway. I completly agree with those five lines. regards, Holger (*) BTW, I dont have an example at hand, but I'm pretty sure I have seen code in Debian written by anonymous and friends. You can't contact them either. pgp1ZwP7gNX1Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written... [snip] Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: My full name is Lars Ivar Wirzenius, and you can send me e-mail by taking my initials and putting them in front of the at sign and iki.fi after it. But is that LIW or liw or Liw or...? :-) [snip] -- | Darren Salt| linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon | RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army | + Travel less. Share transport more. PRODUCE LESS CARBON DIOXIDE. A clean and tidy desk is a sign of a *very* sick mind. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said: I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written... [snip] Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: My full name is Lars Ivar Wirzenius, and you can send me e-mail by taking my initials and putting them in front of the at sign and iki.fi after it. But is that LIW or liw or Liw or...? :-) I know it was a joke, but since email is (usually) case-insensitive, it won't matter in practice. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said: I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written... [snip] Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: My full name is Lars Ivar Wirzenius, and you can send me e-mail by taking my initials and putting them in front of the at sign and iki.fi after it. But is that LIW or liw or Liw or...? :-) I know it was a joke, but since email is (usually) case-insensitive, it won't matter in practice. not at all. rfc2821 2.4 The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive. So, senders should use LIW@ but the MTA at the other end is free to accept liw@ and Liw@ etc ... ;-) Regards, Paddy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said: I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written... [snip] Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: My full name is Lars Ivar Wirzenius, and you can send me e-mail by taking my initials and putting them in front of the at sign and iki.fi after it. But is that LIW or liw or Liw or...? :-) I know it was a joke, but since email is (usually) case-insensitive, it won't matter in practice. not at all. rfc2821 2.4 The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive. So, senders should use LIW@ but the MTA at the other end is free to accept liw@ and Liw@ etc ... However, exploiting the case sensitivity of mailbox local-parts impedes interoperability and is discouraged. Hence the '(usually) case-insensitive'. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:54:08PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:18PM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Darren Salt said: I demand that Lars Wirzenius may or may not have written... [snip] Obfuscation which can easily be reversed by a human, but not so easily by a computer, does not render contact information incorrect. If I write my e-mail address as follows, it's still correct: My full name is Lars Ivar Wirzenius, and you can send me e-mail by taking my initials and putting them in front of the at sign and iki.fi after it. But is that LIW or liw or Liw or...? :-) I know it was a joke, but since email is (usually) case-insensitive, it won't matter in practice. not at all. rfc2821 2.4 The local-part of a mailbox MUST BE treated as case sensitive. So, senders should use LIW@ but the MTA at the other end is free to accept liw@ and Liw@ etc ... However, exploiting the case sensitivity of mailbox local-parts impedes interoperability and is discouraged. Hence the '(usually) case-insensitive'. yes, I caught that '(usually)'. figured that was what you meant :-) I don't think that drawing the conclusion I did counts as exploiting the case sensititivity of mailbox local-parts, it being explictly covered in the passage I quoted, although I would agree that perhaps Lars should be discouraged from depending on this interpretation ... ;-) On the other hand, relying on the case-insensitivity of the local-part is explicitly broken, even if it works in practice :-) I'm so glad we have standards to make these things clear ;-) Regards, Paddy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Holger Levsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether or not it its an requirement to be able to contact the author, doesnt have anything to do with obfuscating the email address or not. (Assuming its not obfuscated beyond recognitition.) That just pushes the question to a different location, without answering it: what do we accept as a valid email address, and what do we categorise as so far obfuscated that it's no longer useful. It also puts one in the untenable position of having to make *individual* decisions on every case of obfuscation: is this one too far munged? Is that one? On what do I base my judgement of too far? I argue that the only fair place to draw the line is valid RFC 2821 email address. The alternative is to leave it to ongoing subjective judgement of unspecified Debian parties as to which addresses make sense or not — or to avoid the question of valid contact information altogether, as seems to be current practice. (*) BTW, I dont have an example at hand, but I'm pretty sure I have seen code in Debian written by anonymous and friends. You can't contact them either. I don't doubt that's true. It's a regrettable situation, because the copyright statement for that person's work is unverifiable even at the time the code is accepted into Debian, let alone later in the future. -- \ Eccles: I just saw the Earth through the clouds! Lew: Did | `\ it look round? Eccles: Yes, but I don't think it saw me. | _o__) -- The Goon Show, _Wings Over Dagenham_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:20:09PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: I'd bet at least a small sum of money that not beyond human recognition and impede machine parsing are, at this point, non-intersecting sets. It's not even like they have to get it right on the first try -- just generate a bunch of differnt unmunges, and try them. Or, more accurately, sell them to losers. I personally agree. I don't bother munging my email address at all anymore, as I don't think it helps a great deal in the mid to long term, and it certainly detracts from the usefulness of an address. However if an upstream author of a package wishes to conceal their address, I think we should honour that. -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However if an upstream author of a package wishes to conceal their address, I think we should honour that. This is at odds with always have correct contact information for the copyright holder at the time of packaging, which I think Debian should strive to achieve for the sake of its users. The only way to honour conceal their address at the same time as the above is to not distribute the package at all. I don't think that's a good solution. -- \Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- | `\ Pablo Picasso | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Ben Finney wrote: That is, so that the information can be extracted automatically and presented by a program in various contexts, rather than having the *only* way to get at the information be to read the debian/copyright file in its entirety. If machine-parsing the copyright file is desired, I suggest someone draft up some kind of control-field format or similar to aid parsing. Attempting to machine-extract useful info consistently from copyright files across the archive at the moment is surely going to be a very error prone task. Until this is done, it would seem a bit unfair to impose restrictions on the way people format the file, such as requiring un-munged email addresses (or even worse, formally specifying the munging method, although thankfully nobody has suggested that yet ;)) -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Ben Finney wrote: I'm of the opinion that a copyright statement for the work in a Debian package should include valid contact details ... If they want to avoid giving valid contact information ... The goal is not withold valid contact information, it is to impede automatic email-harvesting software. So far we haven't discussed munging addresses beyond human recognition, just sufficiently to impede work on machine-parsing the copyright file (which I have otherwise heard nothing about) as a by-product. -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jon Dowland wrote: Ben Finney wrote: That is, so that the information can be extracted automatically and presented by a program in various contexts, rather than having the *only* way to get at the information be to read the debian/copyright file in its entirety. If machine-parsing the copyright file is desired, I suggest someone draft up some kind of control-field format or similar to aid parsing. Attempting to machine-extract useful info consistently from copyright files across the archive at the moment is surely going to be a very error prone task. Like say, http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat ? Don Armstrong -- There is no such thing as social gambling. Either you are there to cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it--or you're a sucker. If you don't like this choice--don't gamble. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 2007-09-24 13:17 -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? So that the information can be presented *to* humans *by* machines. How do you determine that being able to do that is more important than concerns over disseminating other people's email addresses without their permission ? These would be the same people who are distributing the code, right? And who put their preferred public e-mail address in the associated documentation? If you don't want a particular e-mail address distributed, then don't distribute it. The people who mind having their address published are not likely to hand it out without obfuscating it. -- André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ bugs.debian.org, a spammer's favourite. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:33:58AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Like say, http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat ? Yup, exactly like that :-) Would specifying the copyright line as being structured (rather than free-form) not be a prerequisite before specifying the email address to be un-munged? -- Jon Dowland -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Jon Dowland wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 02:33:58AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Like say, http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat ? Yup, exactly like that :-) Would specifying the copyright line as being structured (rather than free-form) not be a prerequisite before specifying the email address to be un-munged? I'm personally not terribly concerned at this point about specifying the email address either way. I'm just against specifying that it be munged. [That's for the author/upstream contact string, though. If the copyright statement contains an unmunged (or munged) address, it should not be modified in either direction.] Don Armstrong -- This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure. -- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_ http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The people who mind having their address published are not likely to hand it out without obfuscating it. These aren't email addresses of close personal friends, given to a select few people. These are email addresses given by the copyright holder as the contact address to use in relation to a particular software work. (If that's not the case, it's not the case under discussion here.) The *only* useful purpose for giving an email address to someone is for them to put it into a computer program; for that purpose, it needs to be in a valid form at *some* point. There's negative value to each person holding that address to keep it in obfuscated form: every time they want to make use of it, it needs to either be un-obfuscated from that form, or (much more likely) retrieved from some location where it is stored in valid form. So it's completely unreasonable to expect that, once given out as the contact email address for the copyright holder of a widely-published work of software, it won't appear in valid-computer-parseable form associated with that software. -- \ There's no excuse to be bored. Sad, yes. Angry, yes. | `\Depressed, yes. Crazy, yes. But there's no excuse for boredom, | _o__) ever. -- Viggo Mortensen | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 25-Sep-07, 04:13 (CDT), Jon Dowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The goal is not withold valid contact information, it is to impede automatic email-harvesting software. So far we haven't discussed munging addresses beyond human recognition, just sufficiently to impede work on machine-parsing the copyright file (which I have otherwise heard nothing about) as a by-product. I'd bet at least a small sum of money that not beyond human recognition and impede machine parsing are, at this point, non-intersecting sets. It's not even like they have to get it right on the first try -- just generate a bunch of differnt unmunges, and try them. Or, more accurately, sell them to losers. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Andre Majorel wrote: On 2007-09-20 23:10 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses in package metadata should be the literal address without munging. I would not be against a policy requirement that packagers *ask* third parties before publishing their email addresses. The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? Contacting authors when you package something is always a good idea, but I see no reason to make it a requirement I see no reason not to make it a requirement. -- André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ M. X, éleveur de spambots, recommande lists.debian.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:02:01 +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11150 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote: Same goes for those idiots with [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. Using a plus sign in the mail address is a _very_ _very_ effective spam filter. I dont care about the +. Thats not my point, I must have misunderstood. Sorry. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Andre Majorel wrote: This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? Because it will be read by machines too, of course. Unless you plan on never allowing the information in the copyright file to be extracted by anything which is rather oposite the goals others (including myself) have. I see no reason not to make it a requirement. Best of luck making it so, then. Don Armstrong -- Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you really want to test his character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? So that the information can be presented *to* humans *by* machines. That is, so that the information can be extracted automatically and presented by a program in various contexts, rather than having the *only* way to get at the information be to read the debian/copyright file in its entirety. -- \ Buy not what you want, but what you need; what you do not need | `\ is expensive at a penny. -- Cato, 234-149 BC, Relique | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? So that the information can be presented *to* humans *by* machines. How do you determine that being able to do that is more important than concerns over disseminating other people's email addresses without their permission ? -- André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ lists.debian.org, a spammer's delight. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? So that the information can be presented *to* humans *by* machines. How do you determine that being able to do that is more important than concerns over disseminating other people's email addresses without their permission ? These would be the same people who are distributing the code, right? And who put their preferred public e-mail address in the associated documentation? If you don't want a particular e-mail address distributed, then don't distribute it. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? So that the information can be presented *to* humans *by* machines. How do you determine that being able to do that is more important than concerns over disseminating other people's email addresses without their permission ? These would be the same people who are distributing the code, right? And who put their preferred public e-mail address in the associated documentation? If you don't want a particular e-mail address distributed, then don't distribute it. Much as I agree that it would be better if such authors would write these addresses properly, surely it is a simple matter of respect ? Sure, you *can* rewrite it, but why would you *want* to ? Regards, Paddy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:02:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 01:17:44PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 24-Sep-07, 04:30 (CDT), Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2007-09-24 18:21 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2007-09-23 17:22 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. This email address will be used by humans. Why does it have to be machine readable ? So that the information can be presented *to* humans *by* machines. How do you determine that being able to do that is more important than concerns over disseminating other people's email addresses without their permission ? These would be the same people who are distributing the code, right? And who put their preferred public e-mail address in the associated documentation? If you don't want a particular e-mail address distributed, then don't distribute it. Much as I agree that it would be better if such authors would write these addresses properly, surely it is a simple matter of respect ? Sure, you *can* rewrite it, but why would you *want* to ? (sorry, that was as clear as mud) for what *concrete reasons* would you want to ? such an author might much more readily be persuaded by real-world uses than the abstract principle. so it might be good to list them. Regards, Paddy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Andre Majorel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How do you determine that being able to [parse email addresses in package metadata] is more important than concerns over disseminating other people's email addresses without their permission ? They're distributing a work, with their chosen contact email address specific to that work, with permission for anyone to redistribute that work to anyone. It beggars logic to assume that permission is further needed to redistribute that very email address along with the work. -- \ One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, | `\ don't run with a wooden stake. -- Jack Handey | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 2007-09-20 23:10 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses in package metadata should be the literal address without munging. I would not be against a policy requirement that packagers *ask* third parties before publishing their email addresses. -- André Majorel http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/ Thanks to the Debian project for keeping my email address secret and keeping me from being spammed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Andre Majorel wrote: On 2007-09-20 23:10 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses in package metadata should be the literal address without munging. I would not be against a policy requirement that packagers *ask* third parties before publishing their email addresses. The package should include in the copyright file the correct email address for whatever contact information the upstream author(s) use to receive queries from users and other people. The other half is the exact text used in the copyright statement and licensing statement; if that contains a munged e-mail address or a non-munged one, then it should be left as-is. Contacting authors when you package something is always a good idea, but I see no reason to make it a requirement (or even a way to enforce such a requirement were it to exist.] Don Armstrong -- S: Make me a sandwich B: What? Make it yourself. S: sudo make me a sandwich B: Okay. -- xkcd http://xkcd.com/c149.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:02:34 +0200, Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You mean the foo at bar dot com value isnt parseable? I dont think it has any value to encode an address like this, as any little spambot can EASILY decode that. Agreed. Same goes for those idiots with [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. Using a plus sign in the mail address is a _very_ _very_ effective spam filter. |$ grep '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' /var/log/exim4/mainlog-20070920 | wc -l |70 |$ grep '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' /var/log/exim4/mainlog-20070920 | wc -l |77 |$ grep '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' /var/log/exim4/mainlog-20070920 | wc -l |44 |$ grep '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' /var/log/exim4/mainlog-20070920 | wc -l |81 |$ The number of messages _with_ mh+ prefix includes legitimate mail; the messages to addresses with mh+ stripped off are all spam, rejectable at SMTP RCPT time (no such user). Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 11150 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote: Same goes for those idiots with [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. Using a plus sign in the mail address is a _very_ _very_ effective spam filter. I dont care about the +. Thats not my point, im using such addresses myself. -- bye Joerg GyrosGeier SCSI benötigt drei Terminierungen, eine am einen Ende, eine am anderen Ende, und das Leben einer Ziege über einer schwarzen Kerze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Thursday 20 September 2007 04:44, Ben Finney wrote: Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to write email address like foo at some.where etc. and I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file. IANADD, but would argue that making the copyright file, including any email addresses, machine-parseable is a worthwhile goal. This goal precludes munging the address. I disagree on this view. The file is freeform, so anything 'parsing' it will end up getting a list of email addresses that are included in it without relevant context. And even if you have such a list, what are you going to do with it? I do not to see a usecase for automatically mailing upstreams based on debian/copyright... seems quite undesirable even. Upstream clearly has an intent in preventing spam through obfuscating their email. That's their choice, and I don't think they'll be happy when we undo that, without having some really convincing goal to actually use that email address. We're currently not parsing anything email related in that file, so let's respect upstream's wishes. What do you think we have to gain by overruling them? Thijs pgpTkghQXNcBq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On 11148 March 1977, Ben Finney wrote: Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to write email address like foo at some.where etc. and I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file. IANADD, but would argue that making the copyright file, including any email addresses, machine-parseable is a worthwhile goal. This goal precludes munging the address. You mean the foo at bar dot com value isnt parseable? I dont think it has any value to encode an address like this, as any little spambot can EASILY decode that. Same goes for those idiots with [EMAIL PROTECTED] addresses. -- bye Joerg madduck and yes, the ftpmasters are not the most clueful people -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Please don't email copies of list messages unless explicitly requested. URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 11148 March 1977, Ben Finney wrote: IANADD, but would argue that making the copyright file, including any email addresses, machine-parseable is a worthwhile goal. This goal precludes munging the address. You mean the foo at bar dot com value isnt parseable? That form isn't the only way email addresses get munged. The line needs to be drawn somewhere; I would argue valid RFC2821 email address is the place to draw it. I dont think it has any value to encode an address like this, as any little spambot can EASILY decode that. Agreed. I would not be against a policy requirement that email addresses in package metadata should be the literal address without munging. -- \ If [a technology company] has confidence in their future | `\ ability to innovate, the importance they place on protecting | _o__) their past innovations really should decline. -- Gary Barnett | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Hi, On Wed, September 19, 2007 07:42, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to write email address like foo at some.where etc. and I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file. I come to think this because when I updated one of my packages I noticed that an upstream author used such modified email address in its source files. You could debate the usefulness of that technique, but if the author prefers to do it that way, I see no reason why we should be deliberately changing that. If it's clear to a human what email address is meant, just follow upstream's prefered notation I'd say. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:01:45 +0200 (CEST), Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Wed, September 19, 2007 07:42, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to write email address like foo at some.where etc. and I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file. I come to think this because when I updated one of my packages I noticed that an upstream author used such modified email address in its source files. You could debate the usefulness of that technique, but if the author prefers to do it that way, I see no reason why we should be deliberately changing that. If it's clear to a human what email address is meant, just follow upstream's prefered notation I'd say. I see, thanks for your advice. Regards,2007-9-19(Wed) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: modified email address in debian/copyright file
Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to write email address like foo at some.where etc. and I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file. IANADD, but would argue that making the copyright file, including any email addresses, machine-parseable is a worthwhile goal. This goal precludes munging the address. -- \ I like my dental hygenist, I think she's very pretty; so when | `\I go to have my teeth cleaned, while I'm in the waiting room I | _o__) eat an entire box of cookies. -- Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
modified email address in debian/copyright file
Hi all, Recently, perhaps mainly due to so many spams, it looks common to write email address like foo at some.where etc. and I wonder if it is acceptable to use such modified email address in Upstream Author field of debian/copyright file. I come to think this because when I updated one of my packages I noticed that an upstream author used such modified email address in its source files. Thanks in advance. 2007-9-19(Wed) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
