>>>>> "Damien" == Damien Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Damien> So obfuscation is imperfect, and the more effective it is,
Damien> the more value there is in cracking it.
That's true, but that's not what I said.
What I said is it is weak enough that a small amount of effort brings
some payoff to harvesting, and the more effort, the higher the payoff.
Furthermore, even though it is therefore not very effective, it's easy
to convince yourself it is, and this _perception_ generates more value
for spammers.
Damien> Im not clear on what your position is.
My position is that (1) obfuscation is unlikely to last 6 months after
it becomes widespread, and (2) it is an unsatisfactory method for
inclusion as a standard in Mailman, because it is costly to develop,
and costly to all the legitimate users both in immediate inconvenience
and in false sense of security, while probably not slowing down the
spammers much.
Beyond that, I don't have a position; I plan to ask my subscribers/
posters how they feel about it, and treat my own lists accordingly.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
ask what your business can "do for" free software.
_______________________________________________
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
