First, I got:
Compiling /var/local/mailman/Mailman/versions.py ...
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "bin/update", line 47, in ?
from Mailman import MailList
File "/var/local/mailman/Mailman/MailList.py", line 49, in ?
from Mailman.Archiver import Archiver
File "/var/local/mai
> Have you seen what slashdot is doing?
unobscured mailto: links?
What am I missing?
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
At 23:15 -0500 2/20/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
>> I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
>> expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
>> for people.
>
...
>
>It can't be enlarged for people that ha
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> Actually, the reason not to use it is that it can be used to spam anyone
> who's id mapping you can grab from the archive!
That's a separate issue and can have a separate solution. Make the form
smart--for example, make it only accept 10 messages from a
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> > If you've got a database mapping arbitrary number/name/string to an email
> > address, then why not just have a web form that sends mail to that address
> > knowing only the arbitrary value (and never divulge the email address)?
>
> Basically, what
At 0:08 -0500 2/21/2002, Dale Newfield wrote:
>> If the question and answer can be arbitary on a site by site, or better,
>> hit by hit basis, then it becomes infeasible to build a spambot to enter
>> such sites.
>
>If it's arbitrary, it's generated by some algorithm. If it's generated by
>some a
On Thursday 21 February 2002 18:41, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> There is some validity to the "the club" mentality, of "we don't have to
> fix it, we only have ot make it difficult enough to convince them to annoy
> someone else". But if we assume we're building the New Defacto Standard
> Listserve
At 20:36 -0500 2/20/2002, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
[Quoting Chuq]
>> See above. You don't get the analogy right.
[Jay]
>
>No, I merely don't value the email address's privacy as highly as you
>do. I get about 50 spam a day in 200 new messages including about 14
>mailing lists -- I'm entitled to ho
On Thursday 21 February 2002 18:08, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> > It's a test to find out if the agent that requested the page is human or
> > some bot of some sort.
>
> Assuming you can build such a test. Good luck.
Building a good one is tricky. It depends
>> It's a test to find out if the agent that requested the page is human or some
>> bot of some sort.
>
> Assuming you can build such a test. Good luck.
That some other programmer can't cheat on. Even gooder luck.
> If it's arbitrary, it's generated by some algorithm. If it's generated by
> s
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, John Morton wrote:
> It's a test to find out if the agent that requested the page is human or some
> bot of some sort.
Assuming you can build such a test. Good luck.
> If the question and answer can be arbitary on a site by site, or better,
> hit by hit basis, then it becom
On Thursday 21 February 2002 17:15, Dale Newfield wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
> > Web Forms for contacting the admin cold. If the admin replies, you can
> > continue the conversation via email.
>
> Right, assuming the web form doesn't break.
Monitor the form. Your monitori
On 2/20/02 8:23 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nor do the spammers need to deobfuscate all the obfuscations. They
> only need enough that they're getting a reasonable harvest rate.
A very good point. We want to make it tough on spambots, but adding
complexity to the syst
>> I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
>> expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
>> for people.
>
> But it does have drawbacks.
>
> It only works with graphical browsers.
This is a very good point. I mentioned ADA compliance yester
> "Chuq" == Chuq Von Rospach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chuq> On 2/20/02 1:37 PM, "Damien Morton"
Chuq> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As far as I can see thay are using url/cgi encoding in the
>> email address. This is trivial to circumvent, as is using html
>> entities,
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Damien Morton wrote:
> I still think the email-address-as-jpeg solution is prohibitively
> expensive to reverse; effectively impossible for machines, entirely easy
> for people.
But it does have drawbacks.
It only works with graphical browsers.
It can't be enlarged for peop
On 2/20/02 7:26 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Show me the systems, jay, that work for real people, not us geeks that run
>> our own boxes on our own desks.
>
> Volvos are very safe, Toyotas are in the middle, sand rails are *just
> not safe at all*.
You're avoiding the iss
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:49:53PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 5:36 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, you're saying because you protect yourself from the spammers, that
> >> EVERYONE should, too?
> >
> > As a matter of fact, yes, I am saying that. There ar
On 2/20/02 5:36 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, you're saying because you protect yourself from the spammers, that
>> EVERYONE should, too?
>
> As a matter of fact, yes, I am saying that. There are cost-free, not
> especially difficult to set up, facilities for all envir
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:58:33PM -0500, Damien Morton wrote:
> Anyone have any idea how I set X-No-archive on all emails being sent to
> a mailman list?
>
> Im using Outlook 2002. As far as I know there is no ability to access
> internet headers in Outlook 2002 without the use of unusual COM ob
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:31:54PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> 1) I think a tool like Mailman has to implement to the highest-reasonable
> security, so if people want to be looser, fine. It's easier to loosen the
> reins than expect JrandomeUser to implement extra features on an ad hoc
> basi
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 01:42:34PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 1:18 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> And burglary is not caused by my owning nice things, either. It's caused by
> >> burglars. But that's no excuse to not put locks on the doors.
> >
> > A mailin
Anyone have any idea how I set X-No-archive on all emails being sent to
a mailman list?
Im using Outlook 2002. As far as I know there is no ability to access
internet headers in Outlook 2002 without the use of unusual COM objects
to get at extended MAPI properties.
> -Original Message-
>
On 2/20/02 2:43 PM, "Dale Newfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Or a header that can be set to cause a message not to get archived?)
That already exists -- X-No-Archive, which I believe pipermail understands.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Stress
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> I'm not telling admins what their policies need to be, but I do think
> Mailman needs to understand it's role as a "best practices" tool -- and
> I do feel strongly that whatever an admin does, they do so in a mode
> that involves informed consent wit
On 2/20/02 2:13 PM, "John W Baxter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At least in Chuq's context, in which Apple claims in their privacy policy
> to protect the addresses of us innocent subscribers to their lists.
>
> That context may not match the context of other list operators, who may
> feel that
At 13:42 -0800 2/20/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>And any decent library also has a rare books room, which IS tightly locked
>up. And while the content of a mail list qualifies as a public library to
>some degree, the subscriber addresses live in that rare book room.
At least in Chuq's context,
On 2/20/02 1:37 PM, "Damien Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I can see thay are using url/cgi encoding in the email
> address. This is trivial to circumvent, as is using html entities, or
> any other reversible scheme.
With a constantly varying algorithm. So they obfuscate, but the
On 2/20/02 1:18 PM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And burglary is not caused by my owning nice things, either. It's caused by
>> burglars. But that's no excuse to not put locks on the doors.
>
> A mailing list -- a publically accessible mailing list -- isn't your
> house. It'
> Have you seen what slashdot is doing? I think it has promise,
> because while it's still reversible programmatically, it
> makes it much more difficult to do. Will they still get
> harvested? Most likely. But not nearly as quickly as most
> other sites, and it's going to make the spambots cr
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:15:33AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 9:31 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I still think it's important to keep firmly uppermost in our minds
> > here that the spam is not *caused* by the mailing list.
> >
> > Nor is it caused by G
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 10:17:58AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/20/02 9:45 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> While I'll happily tell the "I don't like cookies" people to get over it,
> >
> > Well, actually, there are still a couple browsers that don't *do*
> > cookies
At 10:15 -0800 2/20/2002, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>That, basically, allows us to stuff mailtos somewhere pointing to an address
>you can mail to to report site failures. I'll even go farther and say that
>address can simply be on a web page, not linked to a Mailto, and if you
>really, reallly want
On 2/20/02 9:45 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While I'll happily tell the "I don't like cookies" people to get over it,
>
> Well, actually, there are still a couple browsers that don't *do*
> cookies. 2.8.3, I think, doesn't do persistence, yet.
My answer: get a real brow
On 2/20/02 9:31 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I still think it's important to keep firmly uppermost in our minds
> here that the spam is not *caused* by the mailing list.
>
> Nor is it caused by Google
>
> It's *caused* by the spammers.
And burglary is not caused by my
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 08:52:40AM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> On 2/19/02 7:09 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up the case
> >> for Lynx. Blind people I had not though about, although I had thought
> >> about te
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 01:57:50PM -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> Users of a mail list have a right to be protected from spam caused by your
> mail list.
Ok. I don't want to start a philosophical war here, and I'm perfectly
familiar with the concept enshrined in the phrase "that's fine, sonny,
Hi to all.
Trying to admin the digest options of any list by web interface, I get this error:
Traceback:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/mailman/scripts/driver", line 86, in run_main
main()
File "/home/mailman/Mailman/Cgi/admin.py", line 187, in main
show_results(mlis
38 matches
Mail list logo
