This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk@cygwin.com
mailing list for the cygwin project.
RE: top posters
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:51:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: RE: top posters
- References: <NUTMEGE8JxQzAmmlOkT00000127@NUTMEG.CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Reply-to: Talk Amongst Yourselves <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Dave Korn wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-talk-owner On Behalf Of Brian Dessent
> > Sent: 28 September 2004 07:05
>
> > 28648 messages processed, of which 28617 had legible email addresses.
>
> > 2. cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin dot com 1526
> > 12. cgf-rcm AT cygwin dot com 342
> > 17. cgf AT redhat dot com 261
> > 20. cgf-idd AT cygwin dot com 232
> > 1. cgf AT redhat dot com 3976
> > 7. cgf AT cygnus dot com 1976
> > 13. cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin dot com 994
> > 26. cgf-rcm AT cygwin dot com 466
> > 38. cgf-cygwin AT cygwin dot com 320
>
> Oh my god, it's full of CGFs!
>
> > 6. cygwin AT cygwin dot com 2185
>
> So who was this? [Bet it's another cgf!]
>
> > PS: If anyone is worried about email addresses being available to be
> > parsed by spammers from this post, then take a reality pill. It would
> > be much easier for said spammer to download the archives and
> > extract the
> > un-munged addresses (producing thousands) rather than
> > manually trying to
> > get them from this post and getting fifty or so.
>
> Well, that depends on your definition of 'easier'. It rather depends what
> features the spamware they have provides, since they're not generally
> computer-literate enough to do much downloading/untarring/scripting themselves.
>
> Since people keep on worrying about spamware being smart enough to recognize
> "username AT domain DOT com" type addresses, I've started replacing @ and . with
> SPLAT and BOING or similar random silly words; there's no possible way an
> auto-de-munger could recognize phrases of the form "word WORD word WORD word"
> without getting a false positive rate in the five-nines range..... <g>
If one e-mail in a million spams someone, that's one too many. Now's the
time (and the place ];->) to resume that "spammers should be hung by their
pinky toes and bombarded with paper copies of their e-mails" discussion.
:-)
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor@watson.ibm.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Happiness lies in being privileged to work hard for long hours in doing
whatever you think is worth doing." -- Dr. Jubal Harshaw