Re: fighting spam || avoiding spam
Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> wrote:
> On 08-Jun-04, 06:47 (CDT), Mathieu Roy <yeupou@coleumes.org> wrote:
>> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> wrote:
>> > How would a script _not_ obfuscate that, but do obfuscate real email
>> >adresses? Answer: it can't.
>>
>> Instead of focusing on how things cannot be done, try to work out how
>> things could be done.
>
> Have you taken the Dilbert management course? Because it sure sounds
> like something straight out of the comic strip:
>
> Manager: "I don't know anything about programming, but I want you to
> make it do X."
>
> Programmer: "X is impossible"
>
> Manager: "Why do you have such a bad attitide?"
>
> Why do people without knowledge in a particular technical field insist
> on arguing about what is and is not possible? Why is that trait
> particularly endemic in programming?
Not having lot of knowledge in a particular technical field does not
means having no knowledge in this particular technical field. No,
Steve, your quotation does not fit, it is completely off-topic.
If you cannot think of a way to detect which strings with @ are probably
email address and which one are definitely not, I think you are less
skilled than me.
Aren't you really not capable to make test on a string and to let it
as it is if the script is not able to determine at 100% the string is
an email address?
What does means impossible in your mail? Impossible for you to
implement it? Probably, to be able to do some work, first you need to
be willing too.
> Manager: "I don't know anything about programming, but I want you to
> make it do X."
>
> Programmer: "X is impossible"
>
Manager: "How so?"
Programmer: "Because."
--
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: