Yes again sorry this is probably the wrong place to opine on this topic. I generally use disposable email addresses but accidentally used a permanent long term address at one point, otherwise I'd just have cut off the bleeding there. I don't think it's easy for everyone to generate lots of disposable addresses.
If there's any way of nuking this page, it would be appreciated http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201203.mbox/raw/%3c20120314050552.gm5...@clowder.feb17.org%3E It doesn't appear to have been replicated yet. I'm really sorry to disrupt the svn discussion. I've joined two open source mailing lists and been spammed as a result 100% of the time, so it's buyer beware. I think it would be wonderful if someone looked at the list serve infrastructure and made it safer. This feels like telnet circa 1995, Adieu and thanks for listening, Darren > Nearly all open-source projects rely on email communications, and most > are publicly archived in >1 places. > > You could use auto-expiring email addresses (for example, > address-$((1+$(date +%Y%m%d)))@domain) --- they are still valid but > pretty useless for spammers. > > > Sorry, > > > > Darren > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Darren, > > > > > > > > Over a dozen sites mirror our archives, usually by grabbing our > > > > published > > > > mbox for the list. As a result, we cannot control how they publish the > > > > email > > > > addresses contained within. It is also important for those mboxes to > > > > retain > > > > the email addresses for archival purposes, and so those third-party > > > > systems > > > > can allow proper replies (hopefully, only by humans, but as you've > > > > discovered... they are not all perfect). > > > > > > > > Sorry for any inconvenience, but please don't blame us. We do try to > > > > respect > > > > your privacy in our own web archive system. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > -g > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2012 5:10 AM, <s...@feb17.org> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Less than 2 months after using this mailing list I've started getting > > > >> spam > > > >> to the custom email address I used to post here. I think it's terrible > > > >> practice to openly publish email addresses in easily harvestable form. > > > >> I'll > > > >> be /dev/nulling this address and unsubscribing. I hope you could > > > >> reconsider > > > >> that policy, > > > >> > > > >> Darren > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:05:52PM -0700, daz wrote: > > > >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:58:10AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Philip Martin > > > >> > > <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > s...@feb17.org writes: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> A little more information on this. I have probably rebuilt svn > > > >> > > >> about 20 times tonight from scratch, with > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks to everyone who contributed useful clues on this. Using the > > > >> > current code tree and rebuilding with different versions and > > > >> > combinations of > > > >> > libraries I narrowed the problem down to the apr version. Either > > > >> > the build > > > >> > of my earlier apr 1.3.9 or the version itself was the problem. The > > > >> > test > > > >> > suite was super helpful and the explanation about XFAIL vs FAIL. I > > > >> > have a > > > >> > build using apr 1.4.6 that passes all the tests it should pass and > > > >> > more > > > >> > importantly actually works. It might be helpful to print a > > > >> > reminder at > > > >> > the end of the default make step suggesting running the tests if > > > >> > this is a > > > >> > common problem. There are a lot of dependencies and some of them > > > >> > seem to be > > > >> > a bit finicky. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks! > > > >> > Darren > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy > > > http://www.uberSVN.com/
