Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive]

[Jason Molenda <jason-swarelist@molenda.com>]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:05:04PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:

> I wasn't exactly sure what I was implying either.  I guess it was
> something like a "nomunge=1" option, the theory being that spammers
> wouldn't be following the gcc mailing list where this setting could be
> announced.


That makes good sense.  Not only would they have to read the list,
but they'd have to modify their crawler-bot to add nomunge=1 followed
by an ampersand option-delimiter in the URL of the get raw message.
I don't think we're a juicy enough target for the spambot-authors to
be monitoring how sourceware is set up and modify their software
specifically for us.

FWIW, all joking aside, my main concern with munging the bodies of
messages was that patches could fail to apply if there were e-mail
addresses in comments.  If we munge e-mail addresses in msg bodies
of both the mhonarc and get-raw-text (without an option like "nomunge=1")
accessor methods, people will have to modify those patches by hand.
Incidentally, I don't know if mhonarc allows for munging in
attachments, e.g. patches attached to an e-mail message.

J