* [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] @ 2005-03-01 14:02 Chris Faylor 2005-03-01 14:34 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Chris Faylor @ 2005-03-01 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers Maybe we need some kind of general admonition against this? It really isn't nice to include someone else's raw email addresses in the text of a message. ----- Forwarded message from Thomas Henlich <henlich<*>mmers1<^>mw<^>tu-dresden<^>de> ----- Dear maintainer of the gcc-bugs mailing list archive, this message http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-03/msg00965.html contains my full e-mail address WITHOUT your usual transformations. To fight spam and protect my privacy, I am asking you: Please could you make the same transformations that are usually done for the e-mail headers (e. g. replacing it with henlich at mmers1 dot etc). Thank you in advance, Thomas. PS: Keep up the good work! ----- End forwarded message ----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-01 14:02 [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] Chris Faylor @ 2005-03-01 14:34 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-03-01 14:41 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-03-01 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chris Faylor; +Cc: overseers Chris Faylor <me@cgf.cx> writes: > Maybe we need some kind of general admonition against this? > It really isn't nice to include someone else's raw email addresses > in the text of a message. No, but in our context it's nearly impossible to avoid, when people start quoting ChangeLog entries. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-01 14:34 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-03-01 14:41 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-03-02 20:07 ` Ian Lance Taylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2005-03-01 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:27:59PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >Chris Faylor <me-SMACK-cgf-PERIOD-cx> writes: > >> Maybe we need some kind of general admonition against this? >> It really isn't nice to include someone else's raw email addresses >> in the text of a message. > >No, but in our context it's nearly impossible to avoid, when people >start quoting ChangeLog entries. Right, but there are certain conventions which we could avoid, like, for instance, the above, where you quoted my raw email address in the "... writes:" I know that this is basically a losing battle but I don't see any reason to make things even slightly easier for spammers. I once tried to come up with a general filter which could be applied to email messages so that ChangeLogs were left alone but anything after a > or a "From: " was munged. Maybe I should resurrect that. cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-01 14:41 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2005-03-02 20:07 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-03-03 3:11 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-03-02 20:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Faylor; +Cc: overseers Christopher Faylor <who-has-no-email-address-especially-not@cgf.cx> writes: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:27:59PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >Chris Faylor writes: > > > >> Maybe we need some kind of general admonition against this? > >> It really isn't nice to include someone else's raw email addresses > >> in the text of a message. > > > >No, but in our context it's nearly impossible to avoid, when people > >start quoting ChangeLog entries. > > Right, but there are certain conventions which we could avoid, like, > for instance, the above, where you quoted my raw email address in > the "... writes:" > > I know that this is basically a losing battle but I don't see any reason > to make things even slightly easier for spammers. I would have to agree with the "losing battle" part. > I once tried to come up with a general filter which could be applied to > email messages so that ChangeLogs were left alone but anything after a > > or a "From: " was munged. Maybe I should resurrect that. Sounds like a good idea. In fact, I think it would be fine to munge ChangeLog entries too. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-02 20:07 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-03-03 3:11 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-03-03 3:53 ` Jason Molenda 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2005-03-03 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers, Ian Lance Taylor On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:37:09PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >Christopher Faylor <who-has-no-email-address-especially-not@cgf.cx> writes: LOL! >> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:27:59PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >Chris Faylor writes: >> > >> >> Maybe we need some kind of general admonition against this? >> >> It really isn't nice to include someone else's raw email addresses >> >> in the text of a message. >> > >> >No, but in our context it's nearly impossible to avoid, when people >> >start quoting ChangeLog entries. >> >> Right, but there are certain conventions which we could avoid, like, >> for instance, the above, where you quoted my raw email address in >> the "... writes:" >> >> I know that this is basically a losing battle but I don't see any reason >> to make things even slightly easier for spammers. > >I would have to agree with the "losing battle" part. > >> I once tried to come up with a general filter which could be applied to >> email messages so that ChangeLogs were left alone but anything after a > >> or a "From: " was munged. Maybe I should resurrect that. > >Sounds like a good idea. In fact, I think it would be fine to munge >ChangeLog entries too. Well, if it's ok to munge ChangeLog entries, then we could munge all email addresses, right? The only reason I haven't pursued this is because I hate to sacrifice convenience for the sake of avoiding evil. 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... cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-03 3:11 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2005-03-03 3:53 ` Jason Molenda 2005-03-03 10:22 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jason Molenda @ 2005-03-03 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers, Ian Lance Taylor 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-03 3:53 ` Jason Molenda @ 2005-03-03 10:22 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-03-03 20:34 ` Jason Molenda 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2005-03-03 10:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:57:59AM -0800, Jason Molenda wrote: >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. 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. It is security-through-obscurity but it's similar to the current spam blocking system. A spammer just has to subscribe themselves to the global-allow list if they want to spam mailing lists but I haven't seen any clear indication of anyone doing that yet. Having to special case something like this seems to be contrary "send millions of emails to get one response" economy that spammers use. If they have to do research to figure out how to spam or scrape this one mailing list, it doesn't seem like that will be a very common thing. Even if it was common, it won't be any worse than what we have now and it should be slightly better. (of course, I'm sure that all of this has been rabidly discussed on some spam-related mailing list or newsgroup somewhere) cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] 2005-03-03 10:22 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2005-03-03 20:34 ` Jason Molenda 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jason Molenda @ 2005-03-03 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: overseers 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-02-28 18:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-03-01 14:02 [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] Chris Faylor 2005-03-01 14:34 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-03-01 14:41 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-03-02 20:07 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-03-03 3:11 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-03-03 3:53 ` Jason Molenda 2005-03-03 10:22 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-03-03 20:34 ` Jason Molenda
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).