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
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 2/19/02 7:48 AM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To be precise, it's not the subscriber list; only about 1 in 5 posts,
> ever.
And if you're that one, you don't really care that it's only 20%, do you?
> I don't know. The people who post are a pretty public-spirited bunch,
On 2/18/02 11:17 PM, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chuq> Are there any other benefits to being googled than being a
> Chuq> walking billboard to the list?
> Those people are
> not going to go fishing in our archives, even if we had a reliable
> search function. So there
On 2/18/02 1:07 PM, "Damien Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But we do want google et al to index the archives don't we?
I don't, no.
> I've found
> myself joining all sorts of lists that I found googling for this or that
> subject.
So you see the archives as marketing to increase usage o
