[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cuajku$3dv$1@sea.gmane.org>
From: davek_throwaway at hotmail.com (Dave Korn)
Subject: Re: mailman email harvester
"Bernhard Kuemel" <bernhard@...ys.at> wrote in message
news:4207F04C.2010403@...ys.at...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi!
>
> Tons of email addresses from mailman mailing lists are vulnerable to
> be collected by spammers.
>
> They are "protected" by obfuscation (user@...mple.com -> user at
> example.com) and access to the subscriber list can be restricted to
> subscribers. The obfuscation is trivially reversed and harvester
> scripts can subscribe to gain access to restricted lists.
Yes, but no spammers actually do so. For experimental proof of this
claim,
http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml
" But none of the addresses that were obscured, whether in "human-readable"
or "HTML-obscured" form, received a single piece of spam, leading us to
conclude that e-mail address "harvesters" are not presently capable of
collecting such addresses. While this may change as time passes and
technology develops, for the time being it appears that obscuring an e-mail
address is an effective means of avoiding spam. "
The harvesters don't bother because there are so many un-obfuscated email
addresses out there, enough to keep them busy for a lifetime of spamming,
anyway.
> An improved version that collects addresses that are restricted to
> subscribers, processes more lists and works more parallelized is
> planned.
Why? You hoping to sell it to spammers? Obfuscating *works*; if YOU
break it, that makes YOU a spamming motherfucker. Why don't you go fuck
yourself instead?
Oh, and by the way
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
<bernhard@...ys.at>
drop dead,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
Powered by blists - more mailing lists