Michael Welch writes:
> Right, there's lots broken at Topica. But I sure do like the intent
> of their obscuration technique.
I don't. What they're obscuring is that it doesn't work.
--
Mailman-Users mailing list
Mailman-Users@python.org
htt
Mark Sapiro wrote at 08:58 PM 6/2/2008:
>| I think the Topica listserver had a great way to deal with email
>| addresses in archives. You could see a semblance of the email address,
>| but no way could you deduce the real address. If you are logged into
>| the site, each is still obscured, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dragon wrote:
|
| If I am not mistaken, I believe that there is currently a wrapper
| script that handles access control to private archives but which gets
| bypassed if the archive is public. The current architecture under
| pipermail is that the act
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| I think the Topica listserver had a great way to deal with email
| addresses in archives. You could see a semblance of the email address,
| but no way could you deduce the real address. If you are logged into
| the site, each is still obscured, but
Michael Welch wrote:
Steve Murphy wrote at 10:03 AM 5/23/2008:
>I've noticed in the mailman-users archives, that if I view info by
thread (using the mailman archives as an example,) which site is
2.1.10 based, that all email addresses are present, but with a
simple obfuscation. (the "@" has b
Michael Welch wrote:
[Regarding obscuring email addresses in archives]
>I think the Topica listserver had a great way to deal with email
addresses in archives. You could see a >semblance of the email address,
but no way could you deduce the real address. If you are logged into the
site, >each is
When creating archives for one of the lists I run (until recently
with another listserv software) I wrote a relatively simple
find/replace grep which replaces the domain names so that email
addresses become [EMAIL PROTECTED] In this case, the list itself is by
invitation only but the archives
Steve Murphy wrote at 10:03 AM 5/23/2008:
>I've noticed in the mailman-users archives, that if I view info by thread
>(using the mailman archives as an example,) which site is 2.1.10 based, that
>all email addresses are present, but with a simple obfuscation. (the "@" has
>been changed to " at
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Steve Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Within MINUTES of my first posting on asterisk-users, I was getting spam
> on an email address that was brand-new.
How do you know that it was your archived post that the spammers
picked up on?It is also possible that t
Steve Murphy wrote:
I've noticed in the mailman-users archives, that if I view info
by thread (using the mailman archives as an example,)
which site is 2.1.10 based,
that all email addresses are present, but with a simple obfuscation.
(the "@" has been changed to " at ".) I can't help but to t
Hi Steve. Thank you for your email, it is well researched and conveys your
point of view.
Your points on inconsistency in protecting email addresses in the archives
are interesting. Also, I am no lover of spammers.
That said, can you break down your suggestions to those relevant to the
inher
Hello!
I'm quite concerned about what I'm seeing in mailman installations,
and the amount of spam I've been getting because I participate in
mailman based lists!
I'm not talking about halting spam that gets submitted to the list
for mailing. I'm not talking about spambots automatically joining
th
12 matches
Mail list logo
