On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 06:07:09PM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
mw-list-spf-discuss(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu (mw-list-spf-discuss(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu)
wrote:
You do realize that ezmlm-idx archives retain the return-path. I
think you are assuming that mailing list archives are all created by
subscribing the archive user to the list. Well, no. For example,
ezmlm-idx creates archives in place (where the list manager is
located) directly from the posts to the list.
Can you show an example of such an archive? I haven't seen one yet.
Also, we could politely suggest to the archive owners that they
munge addresses (in both header and envelope) before allowing them
to hit the web.
If all the addresses were munged, how do spammers get addresses? Just
because on web archives you see munged addresses (like on MARC), does
not mean spammers cannot get to the original emails. For example, all
my addresses that are used in lists that are archived at MARC are
spammed within hours. In case of gmane, you do not even have to get
the originals, the munging is so obvious; just get it from the html
source:
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
ie
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
In any case, here is what happens with ezmlm-idx
$ ezmlm-make ~/T ~/.qmail-t mw-t csi.hu
$ echo T | mailsubj "T" mw-t(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu
$ head -n1 T/archive/0/01
Return-Path: <mw(_at_)csi(_dot_)hu>
As it is, the archive directory is mode 700, but once you put it on
the web in some form, 700 has to change.
Retaining the envelope sender of a message is very useful for the
admin, BTWY.
Mate
--
---
Mate Wierdl | Dept. of Math. Sciences | University of Memphis
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html