Rockbox.org home
release
dev builds
extras
themes manual
wiki
device status forums
mailing lists
IRC bugs
patches
dev guide



Rockbox mail archive

Subject: Re: FW: [users] Slow Monday -- No Bots?

Re: FW: [users] Slow Monday -- No Bots?

From: Jerry Van Baren <gerald.vanbaren_at_smiths-aerospace.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:31:26 -0500

Christopher Woods wrote:
> Ack, I'm not trying to come over as a rude person, that that has even
> happened has annoyed me greatly.

[snip]

> Personal differences, I suppose. I was surprised that the list doesn't fully
> protect addresses from a. nonymous viewing them on the web, I've worked very
> hard to keep this address (like several others I use) spam free for a long
> time, and it's only after the recent airings of my address on the mailing
> list archives (as also indicated by Google) that I've received an upsurge in
> junkmail. Can you see why I'm a bit miffed about all of this?

Doing a search on google:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=christof%40infinitus.co.uk&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a>

It finds your email address in three places. Two of the three places
are Rockbox archives where your _direct_ email address is obfuscated by
the archives but SOME ONE ELSE did a reply to your email and the reply
has your email address in plain text. The archiver did not detect and
obfuscate the email address in the reply text.

The third case is not directly Rockbox's fault. It is:
<http://www.arcknowledge.com/gmane.comp.systems.archos.rockbox.devel/2006-11/msg00140.html>
which is a 3rd party mirror of the list. I have no idea why.

> It's hard to have a decent, understanding conversation about this kind of
> thing via email, it makes things very impersonal, and people can sometimes
> come over a little brash or obnoxious, certainly more than they desire to be
> (I hate confrontation myself, I was merely trying to discuss an issue at
> hand which affects everyone) and I'm sorry if you took offense at what I
> said. I'm not the kind of person who's prone or wont to causing unnecessary
> aggravation.

Well, I think you are chasing the obvious, but probably not correct,
source of the problem. Kinda like blaming the "from" address of spam
without looking at the headers to see what spoofing was used.

As Daniel pointed out, obfuscation is already in place (although done
cleverly so that it isn't obvious from casual observation). To totally
fix the problem:

1) The email texts need to be scanned for email addresses and obfuscate
them too. I'm not familiar with the archiver(s) so I don't know if this
is available or if it would require additional coding.

2) As I pointed out before, the leakage could well be one of the
hundreds of users on this list that is running Windows and has spyware
installed. I suspect a large source of spam email addresses is spyware
dumping Outlook address books.

gvb
Received on 2007-02-21


Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew
aaa