I configured the mailing list archives to obfuscate emails now. All new messages will have this. It is a simple form of protection at the moment. It simply changes the emails to this: jnewman_at_codeweavers.com. I don't think this may be enough protection however. I can go one step further just make the emails totally invalid. something like jnewman(a)email.domain.hidden I'm in favor of the later option. Anyone have opinions on this. Note this only affects new posts, for old posts in the archives, I will write a script that does the same. -- Jeremy Newman <jnewman(a)codeweavers.com> CodeWeavers, Inc.
I'll second what Brian said, if you read the GMANE FAQ it says that the general consensus in the anti-spam community is that spam bots don't do even trivial unobfustucation, at least for now. On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 16:35, Jeremy Newman wrote:
I configured the mailing list archives to obfuscate emails now. All new messages will have this. It is a simple form of protection at the moment. It simply changes the emails to this: jnewman_at_codeweavers.com.
I don't think this may be enough protection however. I can go one step further just make the emails totally invalid. something like jnewman(a)email.domain.hidden
I'm in favor of the later option. Anyone have opinions on this.
Note this only affects new posts, for old posts in the archives, I will write a script that does the same.
Mike Hearn wrote:
I'll second what Brian said, if you read the GMANE FAQ it says that the general consensus in the anti-spam community is that spam bots don't do even trivial unobfustucation, at least for now.
That's no longer the case, I'm afraid. I got spam to an email address that was only published obfuscated (http://www.php.net/manual/en/tutorial.forms.php - bottom comment is mine). I suspect that spammers do collect obfuscated addresses from specific sites they know how to decode (a google search, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=phpcomment%40shemesh...., did not bring anything up). I vote for either totally hiding the email address, or doing javascript decryption with different keys for different archive posts (code at http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/email/). -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/
On Thu, 08 May 2003 22:23:57 +0300 Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel(a)shemesh.biz> wrote:
Mike Hearn wrote:
I'll second what Brian said, if you read the GMANE FAQ it says that the general consensus in the anti-spam community is that spam bots don't do even trivial unobfustucation, at least for now.
That's no longer the case, I'm afraid. I got spam to an email address that was only published obfuscated (http://www.php.net/manual/en/tutorial.forms.php - bottom comment is mine).
I suspect that spammers do collect obfuscated addresses from specific sites they know how to decode (a google search, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=phpcomment%40shemesh....,
did not bring anything up).
I vote for either totally hiding the email address, or doing javascript decryption with different keys for different archive posts (code at http://www.jracademy.com/~jtucek/email/).
If the link between wine-users and c.e.m.w gets operational again it will need the same treatment. My vote also goes to complete hiding - does anyone really want any direct mail from people who are not on the list.
participants (4)
-
Jeremy Newman -
Keith Matthews -
Mike Hearn -
Shachar Shemesh