Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 21:12, kosh wrote: > As I already pointed out the existing email harvesters already do this by > default. You are not defeating anything. I think you overestimate how much > time it takes to parse stuff like that. It problems takes more time to > gather the data over the network connection then it takes to parse it. But in contradiction to a clear write email address a demunged munged address is more worth because somebody has tried to protect it against me. Houses with fences and alarms tend to have more valuables inside than houses without doors. Stop using email for questions and answers and turn to wiki.debian.net. That way you will not only avoid giving out your email, you will also contribute to fast growing, searchable faq and in the end there will be no need to be subscribed to debian-kde. -- Svenn
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 20:26, Antiphon wrote: > You could also munge the @ sign and around it as I said in the previous > example. However, using only the entity way I outlined above would be more > convenient for someone like you who wants clickability. It would be even better to use java.graphics and make the emails on the fly with different colours and fonts and a rule, also written in on the fly graphics, that says something like: use only red helvetica fonts read from right to left. You had better munge the munge to avoid da demungers. -- Svenn
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 20:00, kosh wrote: > If I have to figure it out then I won't reply. I get thousands of email a > day and reply to some of them to help people. There are so many that I > could reply to anyone that makes my life just a little more difficult will > not get a reply. Also do you honestly think that the bots are not smart > enough to deal with that? great honor to helpers. If questions and answers were collected on wiki.debian.net, then there would be no problem as there are no emails needed and your answers will stay for ever and even be searchable (google show more and more .com sites on any hits nowadays.) -- Svenn
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:47, Antiphon wrote: > Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter > of making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too > hard for someone to figure out. A proper regular expression can recognize the dots and ats and replace them with proper signs. Email should stay email in case times changes to better. -- Svenn
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:46, Johannes Zarl wrote: > Well, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the email-addresses must not be > munged. I don't know if this is supported by any mailing-list software, > but how about just munging the addresses in the archive? I guess > address-collectors don't subscribe any list just to extract addresses... Somehow lists.debian.org show up in google and then there is no need for subscribing. Use wiki.debian.net to communicate problems and solutions. No need to make an email official, but still able to contribute. -- Svenn
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 19:16, kosh wrote: > I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is very > useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to reply to > someone. If the mail bounces I won't waste any more time contacting them. > Overall not one list that I am on munges email addresses and when people do > it to their own addresses they often end up getting no help at all. I see > that on the python and zope lists a fair bit. use wiki.debian.net -- Svenn
Re: [OT] Re: Spam because of this list
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 04:35:12AM +0200, Thomas Ritter wrote: > Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2003 03:30 schrieb Antiphon: > > I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can > > stop spam. It's like pornography, religions, drugs and guns. The more you > > try to regulate it, the less you'll succeed at stopping it. Spam is a > > problem created by technology that can only be solved by it. > > Hm. Not really... it's more a social problem. Too many people react to Spam > by > buying the fscking product. > > Of course Mail Virii are a different problem, which is being called Microsoft > Outbreak or similar... > By the way, why the hell do some stupid admins filter virii out of mails and > _send_ the rest of that Virus Distribution Mail? Those are nearly the only > mails dropping through my SpamAssassin / ClamAV combination and going into my > inbox :(( The following will get rid of most of that. Of course you may get a few false positives, but it is generally worth the collateral damage. ;) Chris --- procmail rules: -toss known viruses before the following checks- DATE=`date +%Y-%m` # antivirus crap - note this will catch poor lusers using RAV as well :0: * 1^0 ^From: .*MailScanner * 1^0 ^From: .*virus * 1^0 ^Subject: .*Antigen found * 1^0 ^Subject: .*ANTIVIRUS LA REGION * 1^0 ^Subject: .*InterScan NT Alert * 1^0 ^Subject: .*Norton AntiVirus * 1^0 ^Subject: .*Report to Sender * 1^0 ^Subject: .*ScanMail for Lotus Notes * 1^0 ^Subject: .*Virus Alert * 1^0 ^Subject: .*Virus Detected by Network Associates * 1^0 ^Subject: .*Virus Found in message * 1^0 ^Subject: .*VIRUS IN YOUR MAIL * 1^0 ^X-Mailer: ravmd * 1^0 ^X-MailScanner: Found to be infected * 1^0 ^X-RAV-AntiVirus: * 1^0 ^X-RAV-Signature: * 1^0 ^X-RAVMilter-Version: antivirus-$DATE # postmaster/mailer-daemon crap - this is usually bounced viruses... :0: * 1^0 ^From: .*Administrator@ * 1^0 ^From: .*iGMailer * 1^0 ^From: .*Mail Delivery Service * 1^0 ^From: .*mailadmin@ * 1^0 ^From: .*mailer-daemon * 1^0 ^From: .*postmaster postmaster-$DATE # spam mailbox - all your lovely spamassassin email :0: * ^X-Spam-Status: Yes spam-$DATE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [OT] Re: Spam because of this list
You prove my point :-D Enough people will always want drugs, pr0n, guns, religion, and spam products that you'll never be able to stop them from getting (or attempting to get) it, including money from former Nigerian vice presidents. None of which is to say that these five things are similar in any other way On Monday 06 October 2003 10:35 pm, Thomas Ritter wrote: > Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2003 03:30 schrieb Antiphon: > > I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can > > stop spam. It's like pornography, religions, drugs and guns. The more you > > try to regulate it, the less you'll succeed at stopping it. Spam is a > > problem created by technology that can only be solved by it. > > Hm. Not really... it's more a social problem. Too many people react to Spam > by buying the fscking product.
Re: [OT] Re: Spam because of this list
Am Dienstag, 7. Oktober 2003 03:30 schrieb Antiphon: > I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can > stop spam. It's like pornography, religions, drugs and guns. The more you > try to regulate it, the less you'll succeed at stopping it. Spam is a > problem created by technology that can only be solved by it. Hm. Not really... it's more a social problem. Too many people react to Spam by buying the fscking product. Of course Mail Virii are a different problem, which is being called Microsoft Outbreak or similar... By the way, why the hell do some stupid admins filter virii out of mails and _send_ the rest of that Virus Distribution Mail? Those are nearly the only mails dropping through my SpamAssassin / ClamAV combination and going into my inbox :(( PS: Now it's 600 MB of that one damned virus in 14 days, that's really really a dimension I've never seen before in my personal mail account. Without filters, I'd have gone mad clicking through M$ update fakes on my linux box. Could it just be the programmer of that virus did the whole thing to annoy us Linux users? (Just to make this thing seem on-topic for this list) Or is that thing on the run like no virus has ever been before? I wish it would be like ICQ... my years old ICQ number has seven digits and as it seems all ICQ SPAM senders start sending at higher numbers :) -- Thomas Ritter "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: [OT] Re: Spam because of this list
Well, I'm kind of bummed out about the whole thing now. Chris's point is correct that there are other places where debian-kde is archived and that getting everyone to change en masse would be difficult to do. I don't have any faith in anti-spam legislation. There's no way laws can stop spam. It's like pornography, religions, drugs and guns. The more you try to regulate it, the less you'll succeed at stopping it. Spam is a problem created by technology that can only be solved by it. On Monday 06 October 2003 08:19 pm, Michael Peddemors wrote: > Again, as mentioned by many people, if you don't want Spam, use and ISP > service that provides Spam blocking.. If you can't use an ISP with that > service, buy a POP address from any of the ISP's that sell just POP > mailboxes with full Anti-Spam features.. (Usually about $5/month) This is > an issue of Spamming, and not of this list, or especially the topic of this > list. > > I know that new legislation is being proposed in most countries, to ensure > that ISP's help to control Spam, both incoming and outgoing. > > And asking the list to control Spam, well.. It's like the old argument.. > > Police shouldn't tell people to put dead bolts on doors; really what we > should be working towards people should be able to leave their doors > open.. It's the thieves that are at fault, not the home owners, and that's > where our emphasis should be... > > -- > -- > "Catch the Magic of Linux..." > > Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant > LinuxAdministration - Internet Services > NetworkServices - Programming - Security > Wizard IT Services http://www.wizard.ca > Linux Support Specialist - http://www.linuxmagic.com > LinuxMagic is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. > > (604)589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
[OT] Re: Spam because of this list
Again, as mentioned by many people, if you don't want Spam, use and ISP service that provides Spam blocking.. If you can't use an ISP with that service, buy a POP address from any of the ISP's that sell just POP mailboxes with full Anti-Spam features.. (Usually about $5/month) This is an issue of Spamming, and not of this list, or especially the topic of this list. I know that new legislation is being proposed in most countries, to ensure that ISP's help to control Spam, both incoming and outgoing. And asking the list to control Spam, well.. It's like the old argument.. Police shouldn't tell people to put dead bolts on doors; really what we should be working towards people should be able to leave their doors open.. It's the thieves that are at fault, not the home owners, and that's where our emphasis should be... -- -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant LinuxAdministration - Internet Services NetworkServices - Programming - Security Wizard IT Services http://www.wizard.ca Linux Support Specialist - http://www.linuxmagic.com LinuxMagic is a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. (604)589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
Re: Spam because of this list
On Mon 06 Oct 2003 2:15 am, Antiphon wrote: > I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is > continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do not > munge addresses. > > Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a 6mb > limit and since I leave messages on the server for pseudo-IMAP efficiency, > I have to periodically go into the Web version and delete the spams, > otherwise my account gets disabled. Lately, I've had to do it at least > once a day. I don't have the time to go and do this so often so > occasionally my account gets disabled. > > For the other lists that I participate in, I have received no spam because > the addresses are properly munged. I have a certain philosophical problem with munging. I don't blame people who do it to keep spammers away. It's that I think that in an ideal world, we should be able to share our email addresses freely to those we wish to communicate with without fear of them being abused.
Re: Spam because of this list
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:07:31PM -0400, Antiphon wrote: > Wow, I didn't know that this list is also a newsgroup. Are saying then > that nothing should be done? That seems rather defeatist. Google Groups > makes some efforts with partial hex encoding (move your mouse over the > mailto links) and I believe they also take steps to limit large numbers of > requests. No google doesn´t do any encoding other than encoding the @ sign for a hyperlink but it then shows it in plain text as well. I looked at the source of the page, before posting about it. I don't know about the speed limitations though. Example: From: Antiphon (mailto:antiphon99%40yahoo.ca>[EMAIL PROTECTED]) Also do realize that the Debian mailing lists are archived at various other sites outside of Debian. I don't know if debian-kde is specifically but I do know that most of the others are. > Surely Debian could take up on some of this. Spam is something that will > never go away but it is something that can be reduced with the proper > effort, especially considering the fact that most spammers are not that > willing to work very hard. I run several different websites and munge the > addresses on them and get very little spam as a result, despite the fact > that they are quite popular. You seem to be mistaken that spammers don't work hard at harvesting addresses, you do realize there is a spam organization specialized in helping spammers with harvesting, right? It was on a internet news site recently (iirc linked by /.) You also seem to be mistaken that a change to all email addresses at debian.org would make a difference. Since one of the biggest mail archives, google groups doesn't obsfucate what will this buy us? Even if it was effective at the beginning it would require lots of cpu time, etc to accomplish. Then a month later the spammers will have already found how to harvest it and we would have to come up with another way to obsfucate them. Even the site you(?) mentioned earlier states the fact that the only type of obsfucation that is likely to work at all is the image smudging style which would take a lot more space, cpu time, and network bandwidth to implement as well. If you are getting that many viruses why isn't your ISP scanning its email? There are many utilities to do this including free software versions. Chris BTW - Also realize discussing this on debian-kde has no bearing whether something happens at all, since no one here has the ability to change how the mailing lists are archived. You would have to convince the debian mailing list or webmasters to change it, which is highly unlikely considering this same issue came up last month on debian-devel (iirc). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Spam because of this list
Wow, I didn't know that this list is also a newsgroup. Are saying then that nothing should be done? That seems rather defeatist. Google Groups makes some efforts with partial hex encoding (move your mouse over the mailto links) and I believe they also take steps to limit large numbers of requests. Surely Debian could take up on some of this. Spam is something that will never go away but it is something that can be reduced with the proper effort, especially considering the fact that most spammers are not that willing to work very hard. I run several different websites and munge the addresses on them and get very little spam as a result, despite the fact that they are quite popular. On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:09:56 -0500, Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:16:57AM -0600, kosh wrote: On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote: > It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I > realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be able > to respond to old threads privately but simply providing a mechanism as > simple as spelling out domain suffixes and removing at signs would do the > job nicely. I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is very useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to reply to someone. If the mail bounces I won't waste any more time contacting them. Overall not one list that I am on munges email addresses and when people do it to their own addresses they often end up getting no help at all. I see that on the python and zope lists a fair bit. Also how would munging help anyway when you have the unmunged addresses easily available at: http://groups.google.com/groups?group=linux.debian.maint.kde Chris -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: Spam because of this list
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:16:57AM -0600, kosh wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote: > > > It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I > > realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be able > > to respond to old threads privately but simply providing a mechanism as > > simple as spelling out domain suffixes and removing at signs would do the > > job nicely. > > I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is very > useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to reply to > someone. If the mail bounces I won't waste any more time contacting them. > Overall not one list that I am on munges email addresses and when people do > it to their own addresses they often end up getting no help at all. I see > that on the python and zope lists a fair bit. Also how would munging help anyway when you have the unmunged addresses easily available at: http://groups.google.com/groups?group=linux.debian.maint.kde Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Spam because of this list
The same problem here :( Iknatius Christof Hurschler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have the same problem, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. Are there really that many infected computers out there??? I'm having to leave my computer on all day to run swendleter every three hours, otherwise my mailbox also overfills! Chris ___ Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más... http://messenger.yahoo.es
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 12:59, Antiphon wrote: > It looks like you're misunderstanding me. I am only talking about when > posting the archives on the Web, not via e-mail. With email, you'd be able > to hit your reply just the same. > > While it is possible to get around encoding, since few sites do it, it is > not worth it for spammers to try to get around it since doing so would slow > the rate at which pages are parsed. > > I have talked with some people and I am assured that most spam crawlers > > can deal with that also. As I already pointed out the existing email harvesters already do this by default. You are not defeating anything. I think you overestimate how much time it takes to parse stuff like that. It problems takes more time to gather the data over the network connection then it takes to parse it.
Re: Spam because of this list
Here's a URL for those interested in other techniques to encode addresses: http://www.robertgraham.com/tools/mailtoencoder.html On Monday 06 October 2003 14:26, Antiphon wrote: > Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to > get around all of the possible variations on the simple way I outlined. > > Good munging uses HTML entities to encode the relevant addresses so that > each person's address is never actually displayed inside the HTML which is > what the bots look for. Onscreen, it looks exactly the same. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes in HTML: > joe@user.or.j >p > > You could also munge the @ sign and around it as I said in the previous > example. However, using only the entity way I outlined above would be more > convenient for someone like you who wants clickability. >
Re: Spam because of this list
It looks like you're misunderstanding me. I am only talking about when posting the archives on the Web, not via e-mail. With email, you'd be able to hit your reply just the same. While it is possible to get around encoding, since few sites do it, it is not worth it for spammers to try to get around it since doing so would slow the rate at which pages are parsed. On Monday 06 October 2003 14:51, kosh wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2003 12:26, Antiphon wrote: > > Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to > > get around all of the possible variations on the simple way I outlined. > > > > Good munging uses HTML entities to encode the relevant addresses so that > > each person's address is never actually displayed inside the HTML which > > is what the bots look for. Onscreen, it looks exactly the same. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes in HTML: > > joe@user.or. > >6; p > > I don't click on stuff I just hit reply for my email program. Also since > you brought that format up. Also I have html mail disabled so if you send > something like that it becomes unuseable. > > import sgmllib > yourmungedstring = > "joe@user.or.j >;p" sgmllib.charref.sub(lambda x: chr(int(x.group(1))), > yourmungedstring) > > That gives '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > I have talked with some people and I am assured that most spam crawlers can > deal with that also.
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 12:26, Antiphon wrote: > Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to > get around all of the possible variations on the simple way I outlined. > > Good munging uses HTML entities to encode the relevant addresses so that > each person's address is never actually displayed inside the HTML which is > what the bots look for. Onscreen, it looks exactly the same. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes in HTML: > joe@user.or.j >p I don't click on stuff I just hit reply for my email program. Also since you brought that format up. Also I have html mail disabled so if you send something like that it becomes unuseable. import sgmllib yourmungedstring = "joe@user.or.jp" sgmllib.charref.sub(lambda x: chr(int(x.group(1))), yourmungedstring) That gives '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' I have talked with some people and I am assured that most spam crawlers can deal with that also.
Re: Spam because of this list
Your example undermines your argument since no script could be written to get
around all of the possible variations on the simple way I outlined.
Good munging uses HTML entities to encode the relevant addresses so that each
person's address is never actually displayed inside the HTML which is what
the bots look for. Onscreen, it looks exactly the same.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes in HTML:
joe@user.or.jp
You could also munge the @ sign and around it as I said in the previous
example. However, using only the entity way I outlined above would be more
convenient for someone like you who wants clickability.
On Monday 06 October 2003 14:00, kosh wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2003 11:47, Antiphon wrote:
> > Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter
> > of making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too
> > hard for someone to figure out.
>
> If I have to figure it out then I won't reply. I get thousands of email a
> day and reply to some of them to help people. There are so many that I
> could reply to anyone that makes my life just a little more difficult will
> not get a reply. Also do you honestly think that the bots are not smart
> enough to deal with that?
>
> 'joe at user dot or dot jp'.replace(' dot ','.').replace(' at ', '@')
>
> Paste that into a python interpreter and you will see that one line fixes
> that address just fine. It is silly to think that address harvesters don't
> have lots of ways of fixing email addresses. Only the complex ones will
> have much chance of working and only so long as lots of people don't use
> them otherwise it will just be programmed in as another type of email
> address to convert.
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 11:47, Antiphon wrote:
> Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter
> of making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too
> hard for someone to figure out.
If I have to figure it out then I won't reply. I get thousands of email a day
and reply to some of them to help people. There are so many that I could
reply to anyone that makes my life just a little more difficult will not get
a reply. Also do you honestly think that the bots are not smart enough to
deal with that?
'joe at user dot or dot jp'.replace(' dot ','.').replace(' at ', '@')
Paste that into a python interpreter and you will see that one line fixes that
address just fine. It is silly to think that address harvesters don't have
lots of ways of fixing email addresses. Only the complex ones will have much
chance of working and only so long as lots of people don't use them otherwise
it will just be programmed in as another type of email address to convert.
Re: Spam because of this list
I have the same problem, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. Are there really that many infected computers out there??? I'm having to leave my computer on all day to run swendleter every three hours, otherwise my mailbox also overfills! Chris On Monday 06 October 2003 11:48, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: > A Dilluns 06 Octubre 2003 10:15, Antiphon va escriure: > > I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is > > continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do > > not munge addresses. > > Try this, > > http://www.hashref.com/prj/swendeleter/ > > maybe it can help you. > > Regards > > > Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a > > 6mb limit and since I leave messages on the server for pseudo-IMAP > > efficiency, I have to periodically go into the Web version and delete the > > spams, otherwise my account gets disabled. Lately, I've had to do it at > > least once a day. I don't have the time to go and do this so often so > > occasionally my account gets disabled. > > > > For the other lists that I participate in, I have received no spam > > because the addresses are properly munged. -- Dr.-Ing. Christof Hurschler Bodenstedtstr. 13 D-30173 Hannover +49-0172-5946909
Re: Spam because of this list
Munging does not mean only removing the domain. It can be simply a matter of making [EMAIL PROTECTED] into joe at user dot or dot jp. That's not too hard for someone to figure out. On Monday 06 October 2003 13:16, kosh wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote: > > It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I > > realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be > > able to respond to old threads privately but simply providing a mechanism > > as simple as spelling out domain suffixes and removing at signs would do > > the job nicely. > > I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is very > useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to reply to > someone. If the mail bounces I won't waste any more time contacting them. > Overall not one list that I am on munges email addresses and when people do > it to their own addresses they often end up getting no help at all. I see > that on the python and zope lists a fair bit.
Re: Spam because of this list
> I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is > very useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to > reply to someone. Well, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the email-addresses must not be munged. I don't know if this is supported by any mailing-list software, but how about just munging the addresses in the archive? I guess address-collectors don't subscribe any list just to extract addresses... Johannes -- "More than machinery we need humanity" -- Charlie Chaplin, The Great Dictator
Re: Spam because of this list
On Monday 06 October 2003 09:19, Antiphon wrote: > It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I > realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be able > to respond to old threads privately but simply providing a mechanism as > simple as spelling out domain suffixes and removing at signs would do the > job nicely. I disagree with this idea and I don't want the addresses munged. It is very useful being able to reply to someone and I will just hit reply to reply to someone. If the mail bounces I won't waste any more time contacting them. Overall not one list that I am on munges email addresses and when people do it to their own addresses they often end up getting no help at all. I see that on the python and zope lists a fair bit.
Re: Spam because of this list
Thanks for that but I haven't had problems deleting the messages since KMail has some POP3 filters that provide for this. The thing is, I do not have access to a machine that can run 24/7 and delete them for me, either through something like this or spamassasin or through mail client filtering. It is bad practice that the Debian listservs do not munge addresses. I realise that munging may not be implemented because people like to be able to respond to old threads privately but simply providing a mechanism as simple as spelling out domain suffixes and removing at signs would do the job nicely. On Monday 06 October 2003 05:47, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote: > A Dilluns 06 Octubre 2003 10:15, Antiphon va escriure: > > I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is > > continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do > > not munge addresses. > > Try this, > > http://www.hashref.com/prj/swendeleter/ > > maybe it can help you. > > Regards > > > Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a > > 6mb limit and since I leave messages on the server for pseudo-IMAP > > efficiency, I have to periodically go into the Web version and delete the > > spams, otherwise my account gets disabled. Lately, I've had to do it at > > least once a day. I don't have the time to go and do this so often so > > occasionally my account gets disabled. > > > > For the other lists that I participate in, I have received no spam > > because the addresses are properly munged.
Re: Spam because of this list
A Dilluns 06 Octubre 2003 10:15, Antiphon va escriure: > I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is > continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do not > munge addresses. Try this, http://www.hashref.com/prj/swendeleter/ maybe it can help you. Regards > > Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a 6mb > limit and since I leave messages on the server for pseudo-IMAP efficiency, > I have to periodically go into the Web version and delete the spams, > otherwise my account gets disabled. Lately, I've had to do it at least > once a day. I don't have the time to go and do this so often so > occasionally my account gets disabled. > > For the other lists that I participate in, I have received no spam because > the addresses are properly munged.
Spam because of this list
I use a free pop email service and am finding that this address is continually bombarded by swen virus spam because the debian servers do not munge addresses. Is this going to be implemented anytime soon? My pop server only has a 6mb limit and since I leave messages on the server for pseudo-IMAP efficiency, I have to periodically go into the Web version and delete the spams, otherwise my account gets disabled. Lately, I've had to do it at least once a day. I don't have the time to go and do this so often so occasionally my account gets disabled. For the other lists that I participate in, I have received no spam because the addresses are properly munged.
