On Monday 06 October 2003 21:12, kosh wrote:
> As I already pointed out the existing email harvesters already do this by
> default. You are not defeating anything. I think you overestimate how much
> time it takes to parse stuff like that. It problems takes more time to
> gather the data over the n
On Monday 06 October 2003 20:26, Antiphon wrote:
> You could also munge the @ sign and around it as I said in the previous
> example. However, using only the entity way I outlined above would be more
> convenient for someone like you who wants clickability.
It would be even better to use java.grap
On Monday 06 October 2003 20:00, kosh wrote:
> If I have to figure it out then I won't reply. I get thousands of email a
> day and reply to some of them to help people. There are so many that I
> could reply to anyone that makes my life just a little more difficult will
> not get a reply. Also do y
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:47, Antiphon wrote:
> Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter
> of making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too
> hard for someone to figure out.
A proper regular expression can recognize the dots and ats and
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:46, Johannes Zarl wrote:
> Well, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the email-addresses must not be
> munged. I don't know if this is supported by any mailing-list software,
> but how about just munging the addresses in the archive? I guess
> address-collectors don't su
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:16, kosh wrote:
> I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is very
> useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to reply to
> someone. If the mail bounces I won't waste any more time contacting them.
> Overall not one list
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 04:35:12AM +0200, Thomas Ritter wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2003 03:30 schrieb Antiphon:
> > I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can
> > stop spam. It's like pornography, religions, drugs and guns. The more you
> > try to regulate it, th
You prove my point :-D Enough people will always want drugs, pr0n, guns,
religion, and spam products that you'll never be able to stop them from
getting (or attempting to get) it, including money from former Nigerian vice
presidents.
None of which is to say that these five things are similar i
Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2003 03:30 schrieb Antiphon:
> I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can
> stop spam. It's like pornography, religions, drugs and guns. The more you
> try to regulate it, the less you'll succeed at stopping it. Spam is a
> problem created by te
Well, I'm kind of bummed out about the whole thing now. Chris's point is
correct that there are other places where debian-kde is archived and that
getting everyone to change en masse would be difficult to do.
I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can stop
spam. It
Again, as mentioned by many people, if you don't want Spam, use and ISP
service that provides Spam blocking.. If you can't use an ISP with that
service, buy a POP address from any of the ISP's that sell just POP mailboxes
with full Anti-Spam features.. (Usually about $5/month) This is an issue
On Mon 06 Oct 2003 2:15 am, Antiphon wrote:
> I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is
> continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do not
> munge addresses.
>
> Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a 6mb
> limit and
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Antiphon wrote:
> Wow, I didn't know that this list is also a newsgroup. Are saying then
> that nothing should be done? That seems rather defeatist. Google Groups
> makes some efforts with partial hex encoding (move your mouse over the
> mailto links) an
Wow, I didn't know that this list is also a newsgroup. Are saying then
that nothing should be done? That seems rather defeatist. Google Groups
makes some efforts with partial hex encoding (move your mouse over the
mailto links) and I believe they also take steps to limit large numbers of
reques
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:16:57AM -0600, kosh wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote:
>
> > It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I
> > realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be able
> > to respond to old threads private
The same problem here :(
Iknatius
Christof Hurschler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have the same problem, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. Are there
really that many infected computers out there???
I'm having to leave my computer on all day to run swendleter every three
hours,
On Monday 06 October 2003 12:59, Antiphon wrote:
> It looks like you're misunderstanding me. I am only talking about when
> posting the archives on the Web, not via e-mail. With email, you'd be able
> to hit your reply just the same.
>
> While it is possible to get around encoding, since few sites
Here's a URL for those interested in other techniques to encode addresses:
http://www.robertgraham.com/tools/mailtoencoder.html
On Monday 06 October 2003 14:26, Antiphon wrote:
> Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to
> get around all of the possible variations o
It looks like you're misunderstanding me. I am only talking about when posting
the archives on the Web, not via e-mail. With email, you'd be able to hit
your reply just the same.
While it is possible to get around encoding, since few sites do it, it is not
worth it for spammers to try to get ar
On Monday 06 October 2003 12:26, Antiphon wrote:
> Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to
> get around all of the possible variations on the simple way I outlined.
>
> Good munging uses HTML entities to encode the relevant addresses so that
> each person's address
Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to get
around all of the possible variations on the simple way I outlined.
Good munging uses HTML entities to encode the relevant addresses so that each
person's address is never actually displayed inside the HTML which is w
On Monday 06 October 2003 11:47, Antiphon wrote:
> Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter
> of making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too
> hard for someone to figure out.
If I have to figure it out then I won't reply. I get thousands
I have the same problem, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. Are there
really that many infected computers out there???
I'm having to leave my computer on all day to run swendleter every three
hours, otherwise my mailbox also overfills!
Chris
On Monday 06 October 2003 11:48, Leopold Pa
Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter of
making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too hard
for
someone to figure out.
On Monday 06 October 2003 13:16, kosh wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote:
> > It is bad prac
> I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is
> very useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to
> reply to someone.
Well, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the email-addresses must not be
munged. I don't know if this is supported by any mailin
On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote:
> It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I
> realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be able
> to respond to old threads privately but simply providing a mechanism as
> simple as spelling out
Thanks for that but I haven't had problems deleting the messages since KMail
has some POP3 filters that provide for this. The thing is, I do not have
access to a machine that can run 24/7 and delete them for me, either through
something like this or spamassasin or through mail client filtering.
A Dilluns 06 Octubre 2003 10:15, Antiphon va escriure:
> I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is
> continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do not
> munge addresses.
Try this,
http://www.hashref.com/prj/swendeleter/
maybe it can help you.
Re
I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is
continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do not
munge addresses.
Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a 6mb
limit and since I leave messages on the server for pseudo-IMA
29 matches
Mail list logo
