From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 916 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2005 17:58:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 830 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2005 17:58:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (192.220.74.81) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 28 Feb 2005 17:58:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 36558 invoked by uid 19025); 28 Feb 2005 17:57:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:53:00 -0000 From: Jason Molenda To: overseers@sourceware.org, Ian Lance Taylor Subject: Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] Message-ID: <20050228095759.A31793@molenda.com> References: <20050228162811.GA2002@sourceware.org> <20050228173405.GH29453@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20050228174406.GI29453@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20050228174406.GI29453@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>; from me@cgf.cx on Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:44:06PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2005-q1/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 Hi all, sorry for not following the discussion too closely... Yeah, I know mhonarc can be configured to do all sorts of munging on the contents of messages. I haven't looked at it recently (I've been meaning to update the version on sourceware for a year or two now... sigh), but we're not treading new ground here. On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:44:06PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > Actually, if we munged everything consistently, we could provide an interface > which gave you raw email addresses again, if you knew the secret handshake. > > Perhaps Jason Molenda would like to comment on this interesting new idea that > I have just invented now, off the top of my head, without any prior knowledge > of anything which could potentially have been done before... Hehe, yeah, as Chris implies, the "get raw text" cgi-mechanism that all the mailing list archives use does its munging on the fly; the files on disk are stored unmunged. Right now it only munges addresses in headers; it would have to be modified by hand to munge addresses in the body of messages. But Chris, I'm not sure what you're impling here? An option to the cgi script that would NOT munge the headers? Surely that would be exploitable by spammers, wouldn't it? Sounds like security through obscurity to me. Not a good plan, that. nomunge=1. J