On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 06:46:30PM +0100, MFPA wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 3:23:10 PM, in
> , Mark H. Wood wrote:
>
> > Eh, I consider the possibility of address harvesting an
> > opportunity for a bit of sport. I enjoy occasionally
> > crafting a new regular expression to make maildrop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 7:18:40 PM, in
, ved...@nym.hush.com
wrote:
> When a person generates a new key, the e-mail required
> by gnupg for key generation, can be listed as something
> benign such as n...@my.keys
Or, IMHO better still, le
I don't know how much of a spam problem there is by having keyservers harvested
for their e-mail addresses,
but if indeed it does become a problem, then maybe at that point, the e-mail
addresses should not be listed on the keyserver.
When a person generates a new key, the e-mail required by gnu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 10:59:21 AM, in
, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The problem with keeping an e-mail address secret is
> you need to keep it secret all of the time, while it
> only needs to leak to spammers once. Those are
> overwhelming od
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 3:23:10 PM, in
, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> Eh, I consider the possibility of address harvesting an
> opportunity for a bit of sport. I enjoy occasionally
> crafting a new regular expression to make maildrop
> automatic
Eh, I consider the possibility of address harvesting an opportunity
for a bit of sport. I enjoy occasionally crafting a new regular
expression to make maildrop automatically toss a new strain of UCE.
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mw...@iupui.edu
Machines should not be friendly. Mach
On 29/04/14 11:13, Hauke Laging wrote:
> if it is supposed to be an answer then I guess from the perspective of the
> "average" user it answers the wrong question.
It wasn't. It was an elaboration on one particular aspect of the answer MFPA
gave.
> "Will uploading my certificate to a public key
Am Di 29.04.2014, 10:51:35 schrieb Peter Lebbing:
> But it hardly ever happens. 22 attempted scams in 3 years, and they
> arrive in batches. 7 batches to be precise; 7 distinct moments in
> time that scams arrived on that address.
That is interesting but if it is supposed to be an answer then I g
On 29/04/14 01:17, MFPA wrote:
> I have a key on the servers for just over four years now with a valid
> address that has been used for no other purpose and has not received a
> single email. OK, not a statistically valid experiment but I'm sure
> plenty of others have done similar.
I have a key o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 28 April 2014 at 5:49:30 PM, in
,
John Wofford wrote:
> I apologize if this has been discussed before,
I have taken part in such discussions before. A quick search suggests
to look in the list archives for around July 2010, Feb/Marc
Am Mo 28.04.2014, 16:49:30 schrieb John Wofford:
> I apologize if this has been discussed before,
Yeah, I was the last one.
> sense to run email addresses through a one-way hash before uploading
> them to a keyserver?
Short answer: It would not work with typical email addresses because
their "
I apologize if this has been discussed before, but wouldn't it make
sense to run email addresses through a one-way hash before uploading
them to a keyserver? It seems trivial for spammers to scrape all
uploaded keys for addresses at this point in time.
For example, I upload key associated with add
12 matches
Mail list logo
