From: adam beecher (adam at domain iewebs.com)
Date: Mon 15 May 2000 - 20:14:55 IST
> Wrong. That's not what I said. I said I don't care that email
> addresses are exposed in the pipermail archives. I still don't. I'm
> taking reasonable steps to protect the security and privacy of the users
> on the system, but *really* - you're posting to a *public* *mailing*
> *list* and you expect your email address to be kept private?
Private from other regular users, no, that would just be stupid. Private from
spiders, yes, and why not?
> I don't think that such filtering is possible, but it might be. Maybe a
> fetchmail configuration could be hacked to use POP3's TOP command to
> look at headers; I don't know. Look at the fetchmail manual to see.
> Also check whether your ISP is using the RBL; if they're not, you might
> ask them why not...
I run in Windows/Linux 50/50. But anyway - if there were like-minded people who
were bugged by it - it's an an awful lot of hassle for many people, for a
problem that can be fixed by one.
> How much spam are you *getting*? I've never taken any steps to hide
> any of my email addresses, I've been on the net for eleven years, and I
> still only get maybe 20-30 spam messages a day, not more than about ten or
> fifteen seconds on a 56k line, or a minute, tops.
> You are aware that a number of ISPs are offering unmetered access at
> certain times of the day?
It doesn't matter how much spam I'm getting. I'll say it again: it's not just
the fact that it's happening now, and I'm not attributing the spam directly to
the archives. Yet. But it *is* something that *will* happen - I guarantee it.
And you all know just as well as I do that as soon as a spammer gets your email
address, it gets passed onto every other spammer, and burned to CD's and
distributed to morons. Luckily we can track down the morons. But we'll never
track down the pro's.
And yes, I'm well aware that ISP's are offering unmetered access at off-peak
hours. I'm using one. However I spend a lot of time online during the day, when
connection time is bloody expensive. So *one* spam message is one too many. And
again, one spam message leads to plenty more...
> > My bandwidth, limited as it is, is important to me. My phone bill is
> > already loony-toons. You've heard these arguments before, in relation
> > to the Reply-to address munging - they still stand.
> Irrelevant, but I fail to see what reply-to: sender versus reply-to:
> list has to do with your bandwidth usage.
My phone bill may be irrelevant to you, but it ain't irrelevant to me. Reply-to
sender V's Reply-to list is valid because I get two messages, when I only
require the one. More bandwidth, bigger phone bill.
> I've taken the steps in http://mosa.unity.ncsu.edu/~brabec/antispam.html
> to help cut down on email-address harvesting. This sort of "once-off"
> fix I am perfectly happy to apply, however, you're suggesting,
> basically, that I fork the pipermail/mailman distribution and create my
> own version with mail address obfuscation. I don't have time to
> maintain such a fork; however anyone else is welcome to request such a
> feature from the mailman maintainers and I'll happily use it if it makes
> it into the standard distribution.
Well, at least that's something. But that'll only stop the amateur spiders - it
won't stop the pro's. And I'm not suggesting that you fork the mailman
distribution, I'm suggesting that you add a patch. How often do you upgrade it
for gods sake?
> Your getting replies twice isn't my fault, it's the fault of whoever's
> sending you the replies, or their mail clients. If the reply goes to
> ilug at domain linux.ie (a simple matter of editing the To: field), it goes to the
> list *only*. If it goes to your email address (the default), it goes to
> you *only*. If people send it to both, that's not my problem, really.
> And, for the Nth time. The reason replies go to the sender by default
> instead of the list is that sending a mail to *fewer* people than
> intended by accident is easily-repaired, while sending it to *more*
> people than intended is irrevocable. "Whoops, that was supposed to go
> the list; I'll send it again" is okay, while "Oh, damn, that secret/
> embarassing/incriminating/insulting/whatever email which I only *meant*
> to sent to one person has now gone to 600 people" is definitely *not*
This has been argued N times, and I'm not going to go into it again. I still
haven't been presented with an argument that changes my mind.
> > I think "hobby-horse" is just plain silly - this is as much about the
> > other users on the list as it is about me.
> Ah, but you're the only one complaining. Do you blame me for focussing
> on you?
Nope. I still think a lot more would be achieved if people were a little less
inclined to throw offhand, usless comments like that around.
> Administring the services on linux.ie is no trouble. One of the joys of
> Linux is that it's very easy to administer, and requires minimal
> intervention once set up. I have to spend about 10 minutes per day
> checking the moderation queues on the lists, and a couple more minutes
> each day checking for updates, bugfixes and so on. Not hard. As to
> 'why I do it', well, I enjoy being involved with the community (a
> community whose ethos I believe in passionately), and I enjoy that my
> expertise, equipment and experience can be useful to others. At the
> same time, however, I *do* do it in my spare time, which isn't
> plentiful, and the "simple fix" you suggest isn't actually a simple fix;
> it would require me to maintain forked versions of standard software,
> which I'm really not up for.
Well, as I said, I think you're going overboard with the "forked version".
> > I'm sure there are others out there who would do it without being half
> > as snotty to someone for suggesting that the email addresses of
> > linux.ie users be protected.
> > A little politeness wouldn't go astray.
> Matthew 7:3-5
Laugh? I nearly did.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:06:09 GMT