From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25044 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2005 17:44:00 -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 24958 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2005 17:43:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Feb 2005 17:43:54 -0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 705D01B55F; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:44:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 03:11:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: overseers@sourceware.org, Ian Lance Taylor Subject: Re: [My e-mail address in gcc-bugs mailing list archive] Message-ID: <20050228174406.GI29453@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: overseers@sourceware.org, Ian Lance Taylor References: <20050228162811.GA2002@sourceware.org> <20050228173405.GH29453@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2005-q1/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:37:09PM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >Christopher Faylor 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