Re: [OT] Email address. Re: i want to re-download all packages... how?

2004-04-23 Thread Jani tiainen
Jani tiainen wrote:

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:

So do it once that way to get the installed packages and then run it 
again
to get the uninstalled packages.

On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:43:21PM +0200, electa wrote:

it selects only my installed packs,  but not the other. i want all 
for my
cygwin-CD!

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto nel messaggio


 
Please feed the spammers my email address; it can only be a drop in the
bucket over the 10-30 Mb/day I get now.  :)


Everyone who writes on a mailinglist that will be archived on net in 
very searchable way shouldn't expose real e-mail address.

This is like leaving your door unlocked while leaving your house/apartment.
Err, and do you really think that spam-mail-address gatherers are so 
stupid that they can't extract mail from somename at somewhere dot com 
format..? That's trivial regexp, and so what if there is few bogus 
adresses..? They mail to millons of addresses so few boguses that 
program extracting addresses might create doesn't matter anyway.

--

Jani Tiainen

--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/


RE: [OT] Email address. Re: i want to re-download all packages... how?

2004-04-23 Thread Dave Korn
 -Original Message-
 From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Jani tiainen
 Sent: 23 April 2004 10:41

 Err, and do you really think that spam-mail-address gatherers are so 
 stupid

  Rule #1 in full effect!

 that they can't extract mail from somename at 
 somewhere dot com format..? 

  Yes, actually.

  There's a broad concensus among the spamfighting community that there
isn't actually any email-address-snarfing software out there that actually
does bother to attempt to demunge addresses.  When non-munged addresses are
out there to be spidered off the web and hoovered up from usenet by their
tens of millions, why bother going to the effort of writing extra code, when
the spammers can already get more addresses than they know what to do with
anyway?

  Seriously, it really seems to be the case that it just doesn't happen to
any significant extent.

  Talk to n.a.n.a.e for more information.

cheers, 
  DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/



RE: [OT] Email address. Re: i want to re-download all packages... how?

2004-04-23 Thread Hughes, Bill
 Sent: 23 April 2004 11:52  From: Dave Korn 
..snip..
   There's a broad concensus among the spamfighting community 
 that there
 isn't actually any email-address-snarfing software out there 
 that actually
 does bother to attempt to demunge addresses.  When non-munged 
 addresses are
 out there to be spidered off the web and hoovered up from 
 usenet by their
 tens of millions, why bother going to the effort of writing 
 extra code, when
 the spammers can already get more addresses than they know 
 what to do with
 anyway?
I'd concur, until everyone mungs their address (I can't at work) there's
little incentive for the spammers to bother. It's an interesting point to
consider - why would a spammer _want_ to decode a munged email as this
clearly shows that the addressee doesn't want spam and the only likely
response is going to be Spamcop et al? Of course that pre-supposes any
intelligence on the part of spammers which is even more debateable.
 
   Seriously, it really seems to be the case that it just 
 doesn't happen to
 any significant extent.
Yet, but I hope I'm wrong.


   Talk to n.a.n.a.e for more information.
YJM!
There my be people of tender years on this list who shouldn't be exposed to
nanae, of course nanau is arguably worse. Hmm, I'm going to check for
a.f.cygwin when I get home (or a.f.$DEVNAME...)

Some people may think cgf is a bit tetchy sometimes (normally with good
reason) but they obviously haven't spent much time on usenet.
My favourite is sci.physics.relativity for truly staggering levels of wilful
ignorance and perversity.

Thanks Dave, you brought back some happy memories :-)

Bill

--



This e-mail transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely
for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain
privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended
recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance
on it. If you have received this email in error, please reply to the
sender as soon as possible and delete the message. Please note that we
are able to, and reserve the right to, monitor e-mail communications
passing through our network.

The views expressed in this email are not that of the company unless
specified within the message.

The inclusion of this footnote indicates that the mail message and any
attachments have been checked for the presence of known viruses.

If you have any comments regarding our policy please direct them to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com


--
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/