Rockbox mail archiveSubject: 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 11:40:16 -0500
Linus Nielsen Feltzing wrote:
> Jerry Van Baren wrote:
>> 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.
> Where does it do that? I can't see it. The address seems to be perfectly
> obfuscated in the HTML source code. Care to point it out for me?
>> The third case is not directly Rockbox's fault. It is:
> Now that seems to be the culprit. That address is not obfuscated at all.
> Not our fault though.
>> 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.
> I can't find any place where this isn't already done.
You are right, my bad. I didn't look at the source, just got all
excited when Google found the email address. The actual source has
Christopher Woods <christof@infinitus.<!--nospam-->co.uk
in the quoted text which is fairly well obfuscated, although running it
through a HTML -> text converter would recover it (which is what Google
obviously is doing).
The direct references are not recoverable via a HTML -> text converter:
This reinforces my contention that the leakage is likely _not_ the list
archives but rather 3rd parties.
Received on 2007-02-21