Tue Sep 28 12:44:00 GMT 2004
> -----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>
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
More information about the Cygwin-talk