Here is a simple suggestion; does anyone mind if I run CHANGES in 1.3,
2.0 and 2.1 through the following filter?
perl -e "while(<stdin>){s#(<[^ @>]*)@([^ @>]*>)#$1 $2#g;print $_;}"
instead of [William Rowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] I end up with something
like [William Rowe <wrowe apache.org>]
Anyone can figure this out, but the bots won't. Specific harvesting isn't
prevented, but the general harvesting, that most of us are victims of, would be.
Bill
At 11:20 AM 11/11/2003, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 05:14:35PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
>> 3). Contributions
>>
>> I don't have numbers to support my clause, but I have a strong feeling
>> that nowadays we see a much smaller number of posts with contributions
>> from non-developers
>
>More facetious than anything else, I'm going to hijack this part
>to make a small suggestion; give non-committers the option of
>not having their e-mail in the CHANGES/STATUS files, or at least
>of having them obfuscated in some fashion.
>
>The ammount of spam I get due to the httpd CHANGES file is simply
>unreal, most of it nonsense - with the forged from headers of other
>users of this list.
>
>That's about the only thing that ever makes me think twice about
>posting a patch/contrib.
>
>PS. This is not a complaint, it's my own silly fault for never
>remembering to ask someone about this.
>
>--
>Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
