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

Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam

Pascal Hakim <pasc@redellipse.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 19:58, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> Pascal Hakim <pasc@redellipse.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 09:03:58AM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
>> >> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> wrote:
>> >                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> > You just quoted someone else's email address in the body of the email
>> > when they hadn't put it there.
>> Is there any worldwide rule that forbid that?
> Well since you bring up rules... The Debian mailing list code of
> conduct[1]: does mention:
> "When replying to messages on the mailing list, do not send a carbon
> copy (CC) to the original poster unless they explicitly request to be
> copied." 
> But more to the point, I bring this up because you mentioned only email
> addresses in the From field needed to be hidden.

Usually there is no problem when the reply-to field is set.

>> > How do you deal with that problem? ;-)
>> I do not deal with it.  :-)
> So a number of people who are opposed to mangling code and archive
> names, and destroying the ability to check GPG signatures of messages in
> the archives in the name of reducing spam have brought up a number of
> points that must be taken care before we can consider doing it, and
> that's the best you can come up with?

Apparently you are only focused on finding issues in the proposal, not
in improving it to make it feasible. 

>> It is not users job to make sure no address ever appears in mail
>> (otherwise you can be sure that it will never come to an end) it's
>> computer task to avoid it.
> A few emails ago you believed that we only needed to hide email
> addresses in headers. Why the quick change of mind?

If you had quoted the mail you are referring to, it would be obvious.

First of all, the proposal was not made by me
Secondly, I only replied that people have no choice but to put their
address in the From: field, making the From: more annoying than any

(please, thanks me for doing your job)

>> I do not really think it would be so complicated to write a regexp
>> that modify all the addresses in a mail that is not understandable
>> with by robot (maybe even just replace the address by a link to a page
>> that requires some form of login or whatever), with damaging perl
>> code.
> If that's easy, why didn't you include it in your email?

I already addressed that issue in another. Because something is not so
complicated in general for programmer does not means it is easy for

> There's so many usages of the @ sign that do no include email
> addresses that you must be extremely careful not to get a false
> positive.


Avoiding spam seems still a good way to fight spammer. The arguments
about how difficult is it to write a good program that will hide
cleverly address to spammer fit also perfectly to the programs written
to detect spam.

Mathieu Roy

  | General Homepage:           http://yeupou.coleumes.org/             |
  | Computing Homepage:         http://alberich.coleumes.org/           |
  | Not a native english speaker:                                       |
  |     http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english  |

Reply to: