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

Re: Spam because of this list

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 requests.

Surely Debian could take up on some of this. Spam is something that will never go away but it is something that can be reduced with the proper effort, especially considering the fact that most spammers are not that willing to work very hard. I run several different websites and munge the addresses on them and get very little spam as a result, despite the fact that they are quite popular.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:09:56 -0500, Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> wrote:

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 privately but simply providing a mechanism as > simple as spelling out domain suffixes and removing at signs would do the
> job nicely.

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 that I am on munges email addresses and when people do it to their own addresses they often end up getting no help at all. I see
that on the python and zope lists a fair bit.

Also how would munging help anyway when you have the unmunged addresses
easily available at:



Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Reply to: