[aur-general] TU e-mail forwards (was: Re: Welcome our newest TU, Lukas Jirkovsky (stativ)!)
schivmeister at gmail.com
Fri Sep 3 12:33:43 EDT 2010
On 4 September 2010 00:12, Florian Pritz <bluewind at server-speed.net> wrote:
> On 03.09.2010 17:21, Ray Rashif wrote:
>> I'm also in favour of standardising the mangling used there; personal
>> preference, right, but currently it looks like a mess.
> Don't obfuscate the addresses at all.
> If your mail provider isn't able to reject spam you should really
> consider switching. Obviously google does a really bad job there or is
> there some other reason most gmail addresses are obfuscated?
> Also if you guys decide to obfuscate every address please don't forget
> the PKGBUILDS, bugtracker profile, mailinglist archives. Also keep in
> mind most bots can decode "foo AT bar DOT com" and similar by now.
They can also parse patterns, and in the event everyone follows the
same mangling style, that would be made easier. At the same time, all
kinds of individual mangled addresses are vulnerable as well. So
neither way is better than the other.
So in general, I agree with you (that mangling is a moot point), just
that it's for the peace of mind that I choose to obfuscate addresses
on a page easily accessible by search engines, but not for eg.,
PKGBUILDs in the repositories (under version control). The web
interface for packages, if you notice, does not show the e-mail
address for either Maintainer or Packager. The AUR, on the other hand,
offers the PKGBUILD for direct viewing. I couldn't care less about
My GMail inbox is pretty clean, in that the Spam folder has everything
unwanted out of my sight. This can be attributed to my aggressive
attitude towards unknown senders, i.e immediate "junking". I've seen
other inboxes full of rubbish, especially if they're not used on a
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
More information about the aur-general