spam protection on mailing list archives

[Jeremy Newman]

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
[e-mail]

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]

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
> [e-mail]
>
> 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.

[Shachar Shemesh]

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=phpcommen..., 
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/).

[Keith Matthews]

On Thu, 08 May 2003 22:23:57 +0300
Shachar Shemesh  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=phpcommen...,
>
> 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.