On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Erich Schubert wrote: >> I have to say, I am terribly surprise gnu.org and debian.org archive our >> mail without obfuscation :( >Obfuscation doesn't help, even if you use some rotating obfuscation. >Most, if not all of these, can easily be broken by Perl Regexps.
Yes, but I don't think that many spammers care to do that. If there are enough sites using different kind of obfuscations, no spammer can write regexps for all. I doubt anybody will spam specifically only a Debian mailing list. >But obfuscation is very annoying to regular users... they won't add >these regexps to their mail clients so they can hit "reply", instead >they'll have to fix you address on each reply. Annyoing. We talked about archiving--which might not support direct reply at all or if it would, a web-based archive wouldn't need to reveal the actual addresses nevertheless. >Therefore obfuscation is not a solution (neither is it for security ;) Not a good one, but... >Better solutions include filters like spamassassin and razor, as well as Spamassassin does make errors. For me it often classifies no-spam as spam and vice versa. I don't know about other filter's but they hardly are an solution. And even if spamassassin wouldn't make errors, it's still less good than no spam: on a local newsgroup it was discussed that on big mail servers spamassassin would require significantly more computing power. >using troll-boxes... (setup mail boxes like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, this might be a clever solution. Also remember that Debian mailing lists do actually accept spam: they just want $1000 from that. So maybe someone should sent a bill to Sharp Systems? http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#ads
