From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/61981 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Reiner Steib Newsgroups: gmane.discuss,gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: User-Agent in spam reporting Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:33:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <874q7gislv.fsf@dod.no> <87d5m03rro.fsf@dod.no> <874q7c3qpw.fsf@dod.no> <87d5lw7i2f.fsf@dod.no> <87zmoi7hg3.fsf@dod.no> <87wtjh947c.fsf@dod.no> <4n1wykxnd0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87zml7qfly.fsf@blah.pl> <4npsm0mhvt.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: Reiner Steib NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1139915478 30364 80.91.229.2 (14 Feb 2006 11:11:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: gmane-discuss-admin@hawk.netfonds.no Tue Feb 14 12:11:13 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gd-gmane-discuss@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from hawk.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.246]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F8y5O-0007JT-QT for gd-gmane-discuss@m.gmane.org; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:11:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=hawk.netfonds.no) by hawk.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1F8y5H-0004HP-00; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:11:03 +0100 Original-Received: from mail.uni-ulm.de ([134.60.1.1]) by hawk.netfonds.no with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1F8y4x-0004HG-00 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:10:43 +0100 Original-Received: from bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de (bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de [134.60.10.123]) by mail.uni-ulm.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1EBAdaT001606; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:10:40 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from viandante.physik.uni-ulm.de (bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de [134.60.10.123]) by bridgekeeper.physik.uni-ulm.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 3391411102; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:10:37 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: (nullmailer pid 13305 invoked by uid 170); Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:33:01 -0000 Original-To: gmane-discuss@hawk.netfonds.no, Mail-Followup-To: gmane-discuss@hawk.netfonds.no, X-Face: 3Phac&+dw=IZHjhua]bp}LH<*p{qzj8u+ List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.discuss:9284 gmane.emacs.gnus.general:61981 Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 06 2006, Ted Zlatanov wrote: > On 4 Feb 2006, phoner.ding@blah.pl wrote: > On the 3rd of February 2006 at 20:18, "Ted Zlatanov" wrote: >> >>> What do you think about ROT13 of the sender's address? It's fast, >>> transparent, and obfuscates enough for any casual snoopers. >> >> IMHO that's not a good idea. Using ROT13 on e-mail address can result in >> another *working* address. Silly example: [...] > Remember, this is just the spam *submitter* and not what's inside the > spam message itself, so it's probably not necessary to over-engineer > it. That's the most important point, IMHO. Only the Gmane admins (or sniffers in the worst case) can see this address. I think the current ""-obfuscation is good enough. If someone else want to do more, feel free to change it. But the Gmane admins must still be able to build the correct address easily and it remains customizable for the Gnus user (I prefer to give the real address w/o any obfuscation). Bye, Reiner. -- ,,, (o o) ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/