[meta-bug] I can not contact Jeremy Newman

[Jérôme Bouat]

Hello,

I can not reach Jeremy Newman. I hope he goes well.

A very important bug still exist for years but its bugzilla issue gets no response
at all :
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5202

Please, say something (i.e. WONTFIX, INVALID, LATER, ...).

I hope someone will respond.

Thanks.

[Jeremy White]

Jérôme,

Jeremy Newman does *not* maintain Bugzilla; there is a
community of volunteers that do that.

If he had his way, Bugzilla would be ripped out and burned to the ground.

Please address your comments to the folks that maintain Wine's Bugzilla.

Cheers,

Jeremy

Jérôme Bouat wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I can not reach Jeremy Newman. I hope he goes well.
>
> A very important bug still exist for years but its bugzilla issue gets no response
> at all :
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5202
>
> Please, say something (i.e. WONTFIX, INVALID, LATER, ...).
>
> I hope someone will respond.
>
> Thanks.

[Jeremy White]

> Please address your comments to the folks that maintain Wine's Bugzilla.

Gah.  Was typing in a hurry, and hit send before I could add one
more piece I wanted to add, which was:

It would be really helpful if you could add a constructive comment.
So, for example, if you could download and install the current
WineHQ version of Bugzilla and determine what settings mask
the emails, or work up a patch that accomplishes that, I'm sure
that Jeremy (or one of the other admins) would be happy to make
that change.

Jumping up and down and demanding work from a volunteer
tends not to work well (heck, it never seems to work for me
for the people I pay <grin>).

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Joerg Mayer]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:31:16PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> It would be really helpful if you could add a constructive comment.
> So, for example, if you could download and install the current
> WineHQ version of Bugzilla and determine what settings mask
> the emails, or work up a patch that accomplishes that, I'm sure
> that Jeremy (or one of the other admins) would be happy to make
> that change.

And just to give you some hint I found in the wireshark bugzilla (no, we
don't have that feature running either):

http://www.bugzilla.org/features/#eam

Our bugzilla manager didn't get it to work properly. So please find out
how to and add it to the bug.

 Ciao
     Joerg
-- 
Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer(a)loplof.de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.

[Molle Bestefich]

Joerg Mayer wrote:
> http://www.bugzilla.org/features/#eam

As far as I can see from a real-world Bugzilla, Bugzilla's HTML
munging means replacing the @ character with the HTML entity "@".

That's a stupid scheme.
Even if it replaced all the characters, it would be a stupid scheme:

First, it's takes 10 minutes for a coder to implement a workaround against.

Second, the HTML standard even *requires* you to decode such
characters inside the "href=" attribute.

There's absolutely no incentive for a spammer *not* to incorporate a
decoder for HTML entities in his/her harvester as far as I can see,
and with Bugzilla using HTML entities, it won't take long before one
of them does.  In fact, most of them probably does already.

A much better scheme would use encryption via Javascript:
 a) Decryption takes time, for a spam harvester time equals money.
 b) We can do our best to make sure that the spammer actually needs to
*run* the Javascript to decrypt addresses, by for example changing the
keys, or even obfuscating the way the key is assembled as a string in
the Javascript decrypt() function with some PHP.  Running actual
Javascript from web pages harvested will slow down a harvester, or
crash it, and it's exceedingly difficult, so it's very unlikely that
someone is going to do that in a harvester.

That would be an efficient scheme, as far as I can see.

It could be implemented like this:
 1) A snippet of PHP code on the server side to encrypt e-mail addresses
 2) A snippet of Javascript on the client side to decrypt e-mail addresses
 3) mailto: links would look like this:

<a href="javascript:decrypt('1234,4231,2343,3421,23432,1234,321,1234,321,234)'"><script
type='javascript'>mail me</a>

<a href="javascript:decrypt('1234,4231,2343,3421,23432,1234,321,1234,321,234')"><script
type=javascript>document.write(decrypt('1234,4231,2343,3421,23432,1234,321,1234,321,234'));</script></a>

I've just tested it, btw.  The above method of returning
"mailto:joe(a)example.com" from Javascript works fine, both in IE,
Firefox, Opera and Konqueror.


 4) Or like this

<head>
<script type=javascript>
function decrypt_all_mailto() {
   var links = document.getElementByTagName('A');
   for (var i=0;i<links.length;i++) {
      var href = String(links[i].href);
      if href.substring(0,10) == "#decryptme" {
         var decrypted = decrypt(href.substring(10));
         links[i].href = "mailto:" + decrypted;
         links[i].innerHTML = decrypted;
      }
   }
}
</script>
</head>
<body onload='decrypt_all_mailto()'>
<a href='#decryptme1234,4231,2343,3421,23432,1234,321,1234,321,234' />
<a href='#decryptme756,56,43,456,234,8,6,2134,43,576,85,23,111,234' />


PS. It's not an original idea by me, by the way.  Can't remember where
I read about it, but someone else out there implemented some sort of
JavaScript email obfuscator.