Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: FW: [users] Slow Monday -- No Bots?
Re: FW: [users] Slow Monday -- No Bots?
From: Sander Sweers <sander.sweers_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:36:01 +0100
On 2/21/07, Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Christopher Woods wrote:
> > If I was in charge of a corporate network, I wouldn't ask my lusers to
> > provide me with patches and bugfixes for the software running on the
> > machines, because I was the one running it I would go and sort out any
> > security problems myself, potential or otherwise.
> This is not "a corporate network", I am not "in charge" of it and this is not
> a security problem.
Who is in charge of the list?
> Your attitude sure is rude enough for me to just ignore.
Well there is enough attitude from both sides and ignoring is never
the best option.
I would like to know what your objections are to enable the 2 options
he found for hypermail. They seem easy enough and imo every way one
can fight spam should be used. I repeat them below.
"spamprotect = [ 0 | 1 ]
Set this to On to make hypermail not output real email addresses in the
output HTML but instead it will obfuscate them a little. You can control the
obfuscation with antispamdomain.
antispamdomain = string with invalid domain
By default the spamprotect option only does a small amount of massaging of
email addresses. Use this to completely replace the domain from which a
message originates (everything after the _at_) with some string to confuse
screen-scraping programs. It is probably wise to make this an invalid mail
Received on 2007-02-21