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

Re: More on spam

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:42:55AM -0400, Jeff Elkins wrote:
| On Friday 17 October 2003 8:04 am, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
| >Nevertheless, I think some kind of obfuscation of e-mail addresses in
| >the archives may be a good idea.
| I'm told that's a dead horse.

If you beat a horse long enough he'll die.  I'm not sure if there's
even a carcass left to beat on any more.

| Beats me as to why, at a minimum, the web archives can't obfuscated.

They _could_, but there's no reason to put the effort behind it.  Any
obfuscation you can compute can also be reversed.  If you munge in an
irreversable manner then you cut off an avenue people who search the
archives have of communicating with someone who knows about the
problem they are having.  Not to mention, swen harvests addresses from
usenet, not the web archives (or so I'm told).  You really can't
control what happens to your address after you send an email.  Even if
it is never posted on a web page, it can still end up in someone's
Microsft Address Book; a common source of addresses for MS worms.

| I'm lucky enough to be on broadband. If I were on a dialup account I
| wouldn't touch this list with a ten-foot pole. 

The main key is to have a quality email service provider.  The service
needs to have automated server-side handling of the mail to weed out
the junk first, and sufficient disk space to store the amount of mail
you receive while you're offline.  It appears that several, if not
more, of the freemail providers lack both of these features which is
why those users are losing mail.  Perhaps Dan Jacobsen would like to
give a report on how well it works when the provider provides service
capable of dealing with the junk server-side.


A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in.
  --Kim Alm, a.s.r

Attachment: pgpNkbwNyIoBX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: