Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 03:34:28PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> First, impossible is meaningless as long as what exactly need to be
> done is not described. No design start by an implementation.
As previously "described exactly":
Pick which of the following should be obfuscated, and which ones shouldn't:
Pretty exact to me.
> It is already possible to obfscute all email addresses in a text --
> will you challenge that assertion. What could be interesting is to
Yes. Because you cannot determine, with an algorithm, which strings are
e-mail addresses, and which ones aren't.
> list the traps to avoid and handle them.
We've been listing traps left and right. Are you going to put any effort
into this by suggesting ways of avoiding them (other than accusing people of
being too dumb to program)?
> The sad thing is the fact I'm not even surprised to read people
> suggesting that proposal should not be made before the work is done.
> Funny to hear that for most debian developers, find a way to modify a
> specific string in a text with the least false-positive is something
That's because it is, when it comes to e-mail addresses and 0
false-positives, and we know it.
> So I think everything is said, change nothing, everything is perfect
> as it is, it is definitely not worth trying anything else.
Nope, but it's definitely not worth trying something that's known not to