[Wine] Wine
L. Rahyen
research at science.su
Fri Mar 21 08:56:21 CDT 2008
On Thursday March 20 2008 14:54:58 Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 20 March 2008 01:11:45 am L. Rahyen wrote:
> > > Address munging is considered harmful. It's the postmaster's
> > > responsibility not to accept spam in the first place.
> > > http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/
> >
> > I disagree with this article. I lost enough mail addresses in the past
> > when tried to use them "as is" without paying attention on how well they
> > munged in the archives or public web-pages; when I started to use my new
> > address only in limited number of "trusted" public places (and always
> > check how well it is munged in these "trusted" public places) the problem
> > was "magically" solved.
>
> There's no such thing as losing an email address to spammers, unless you're
> doing something truly stupid like using easy passwords so they can hijack
> your account.
Spammers don't need passwords. They need the user attention! If I have
address that receives dozens or more spam messages per day I consider
it "destroyed". I don't have a time to filter spam messages by hand and
didn't found really effective way to filter them automatically without
possibility to lose legitimate messages yet.
> There's plenty of tools to deal with the spam problem the
> right way, there's really no legitimate excuse to deal with it the lazy,
> ineffectual way.
Just let's remember recent spam assault in wine-users. How many users was
able to filter out this spam messages automatically? Almost nobody I guess.
This suggests that most users at this list don't know about perfect (or
near-perfect) solution how to automatically distinguish between spam and
legitimate messages and I think that it doesn't exist yet.
BTW, my current way of dealing with spam is very efficient in practice. For
my e-mail I receive few spam messages per week. For e-mail addresses that was
published in some *popular* places without munging I receive up to
hundreds of spam messages per day (so I just disabled these addresses because
of this).
Anyway, this becomes offtopic discussion (not related to WINE or its
forum/ML). So let's discuss this farther offlist; I sent you a messages with
more detailed answers/questions privately. Thank you.
* * *
Originally my answer to this topic was about that users of the forum have an
option to hide their e-mail (make it non-public) and maybe they don't want it
to be available for everyone (BTW, all addresses will be munged by public
e-mail archives automatically).
One reason for this is that they probably don't expect to receive answers via
e-mail and this is what most likely to happen because many of us use
reply-to-all button in MLs. This is true even if (forum) user decided to not
hide his/her e-mail in the forum settings. This is mostly privacy-related
question. So if we decide to post their address there should be big fat
warning in the setting of the forum about this. But I consider posting their
address in "From:" field as very bad idea because of above reason. And I
don't see reasons where disclosement of e-mail address of forum users would
be actually useful for other people who are using ML.
More information about the wine-users
mailing list