[TriLUG] email obfuscating
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:15:13 -0400
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 09:19:50AM -0400, Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2002, Thunder Bear wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-08-12 at 18:44, Joey O'Doherty wrote:
> > > I was browsing the trilug email archives and I noticed that email
> > > addresses in the body of a message (eg in a signature) are available in
> > > all their glory for spam harvesters. Is there any hope of obfuscating
> > > them automatically in the archives? Or should they be spam-proofed from
> > > the user side anyway?
> > [vice chair hat off]
> > IMHO, this should be up to the end users. I have a bad feeling in my
> > stomach about altering the body of a message, no matter how good the
> > intentions are. Who am I to second guess the intentions of someone who
> > puts their email address in the body of their message?
> I agree with Chris. Many people include obfuscated email addresses in
> their signatures instead of the real address, so I would suggest you do
> that if you're really concerned. Personally I don't use a signature at
> all, so it's not a problem. :-)
But it's not just signatures that put non-munged addresses in the body
of an e-mail. It's people mailers. Many of the MUAs out there put
e-mail addresses in the body when replying to (in the initial "somebody
or other wrote:" line) or forwarding an e-mail. Automatic munging of
the archive would take care of these that the user who sent the mail
might or not be able to control or change on her own.
Personally, I don't care either way whether the archive has e-mail
addresses munged or not. The way I look at it, eventually, spam
harvesters will get my e-mail address one way or another, and I'll end
up running filtering software like spamassasin on the receiving end to
decrease the annoyance. Removing trilug as a vector would be great,
but, IMHO, a drop in the bucket overall.
mbroome at employees dot org