About spammers getting email addresses from suse archives
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 18:30:29 PM +0100, Vince Littler (who.still.believes.@that.his.address.is.secret) wrote:
On Monday 10 April 2006 18:17, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Vince Littler <redacted> [04-10-06 12:34]:
Actually, talking of crass, there you go again, you have put my email address into the archives at http://lists.suse.com/archive/ suse-linux-e/2006-Apr/1059.html, despite repeated requests not to.
:^) I'll take that as an admission that [given previous correspondence] you are putting my email address into the archives, deliberately and with the knowledge and intent that it will be trawled by spammers. I don't actually need to say any more.
Vince, and all others still nurturing such illusions: have you realized that whatever Patrick, I or anybody else does with the attribution line, your address is already being harvested by spammers anyway? Every time you post? Check out this post of yours at http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Apr/1100.html See the From line at the beginning of the page? How much time do you think it's needed to write a script that downloads all the archives and replaces all the _at_ strings with @ ? I would need less than 5 minutes, and I wouldn't even have the money incentive... But hey, why do it when it would be even easier to subscribe a fake, silent address with the sole purpose of receiving at home all the original messages, addresses and all? I *can* understand and partly share your concern, but to yell at other users *after* your "secret" has been written on every wall sounds a bit silly. In any case, it's almost useless. HTH, Marco -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book. - Groucho Marx
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 15:50 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: Vince, You need to understand the the above line is added by the email client, -NOT- the one replying to your post, so the poster has -NO- control what is put there without re-writing the code for the client program. Search the archives and you will find numerous entries containing the full address of the OP depending on the client software used. -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
On Friday 21 April 2006 10:10, Ken Schneider wrote:
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 15:50 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
Vince,
You need to understand the the above line is added by the email client, -NOT- the one replying to your post, so the poster has -NO- control what is put there without re-writing the code for the client program. Search the archives and you will find numerous entries containing the full address of the OP depending on the client software used.
1) People have a choice of email clients..... 2) Many email clients (like Kmail for example) allow you to specity the information of user, address, etc.....
On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 11:05:25 AM -0400, Bruce Marshall (bmarsh@bmarsh.com) wrote:
On Friday 21 April 2006 10:10, Ken Schneider wrote:
You need to understand the the above line is added by the email client, -NOT- the one replying to your post, so the poster has -NO- control what is put there without re-writing the code for the client program.
1) People have a choice of email clients.....
2) Many email clients (like Kmail for example) allow you to specity the information of user, address, etc.....
Of course. But sometimes even such tricks may not be enough. I have seen more than once the very same flames, by people who were so proud of how they *did* obscure the From and Reply-to headers, happening on lists which still publish online the whole, raw, original mbox file, with the address of those same people inside some other header. And one gzipped mbox file is much faster to download and parse than a whole MhonArc directory, so rest assured that spammers do it that way. What I mean is that it is totally, totally useless to be so paranoid and yell at other subscribers until one has both configured properly his email client AND checked/demanded that the archives are managed properly. For EVERY list one wants to follow. Ciao, Marco -- Marco Fioretti mfioretti, at the server mclink.it Fedora Core 5 for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/ Technology is legislation -- C. Einfeldt on OO.o discuss list
On Friday 21 April 2006 15:10, Ken Schneider wrote:
Vince,
You need to understand the the above line is added by the email client,
Yes, I do understand that
-NOT- the one replying to your post, so the poster has -NO- control what is put there without re-writing the code for the client program.
Or choosing another client, or just rewriting what the client presents
On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 15:50 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 18:30:29 PM +0100, Vince Littler (who.still.believes.@that.his.address.is.secret) wrote:
On Monday 10 April 2006 18:17, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Vince Littler <redacted> [04-10-06 12:34]:
Actually, talking of crass, there you go again, you have put my email address into the archives at http://lists.suse.com/archive/ suse-linux-e/2006-Apr/1059.html, despite repeated requests not to.
:^) I'll take that as an admission that [given previous correspondence] you are putting my email address into the archives, deliberately and with the knowledge and intent that it will be trawled by spammers. I don't actually need to say any more.
Vince, and all others still nurturing such illusions:
have you realized that whatever Patrick, I or anybody else does with the attribution line, your address is already being harvested by spammers anyway? Every time you post?
Check out this post of yours at http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Apr/1100.html
Here is another example of a message in the archives with the full email address that was -not- sent by Patrick: http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2006-Apr/1102.html -- Ken Schneider UNIX since 1989, linux since 1994, SuSE since 1998
participants (4)
-
Bruce Marshall -
Ken Schneider -
M. Fioretti -
Vince Littler