[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Spam: process the web archives?



On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 08:11:43PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:

> > >We should not disseminate email addresses from people who subscribed
> > >to our lists or allow others to do so. If this means forbidding
> > >archives of Debian lists which do not protect email addresses, let's
> > >forbid them.

> > Why not?

> Because when someone posts something to a list, what he/she usually
> wants is to communicate a message (specially the contents) to the
> subscribers of such list, not giving his email address to the whole
> universe.

Debian mailing lists are *public*, which means that all information
posted to them, including the addresses of the senders, is available to
the world.  This means spammers can get it, but it also means legitimate
users can get it; you can't screw over one group without screwing over
the other.

As far as I'm concerned, we're all in this together.  Spam is a global
problem, that isn't going to be solved by people trying to "protect"
their email addresses by making them hard to find / hard to decipher.
I'm a postmaster for 600 domains, and it's bloody impossible to filter
out legitimate postmaster issues from the thousands of spam-related
bounces that are generated every week -- even with protection in place to
detect when the mailserver is being flooded.  I have little sympathy for
people who complain about two or three spams a day, when these same
people are unwilling to exert political and economic pressure on
spammers.  I have NO sympathy for people who think the solution is to
hide from the problem.  If you want to hide from the Internet, unplug
your modem and throw it away.  Then you won't need to post to Debian
mailing lists at all.  Otherwise, you're going to get spam, until and
unless we can find effective means of deterring people from trying to
spam in the first place.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgpvc8i1j_eiN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: