[ale] (no subject) SPAM talk...

[ChangingLINKS.com]

On Saturday 17 April 2004 11:14, Geoffrey wrote:
> Bjorn Dittmer-Roche wrote:
> 
> > Ouch! Well drew does have a point about obfuscation and it's backed up by
> > actual RESEARCH. I find it frustrating to read a thread like this where
> > noone has actually backed up their claims with facts. Of course this kind
> > of research becomes outdated fast, so maybe that's why noone bothered, but
> > FWIW here's one very good citation with solid research:
> > 
> > http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml
> 
> This document is ancient by internet standards, it's over a year old. 
> Further, if you'll do a search for spam bots that process web pages, 
> you'll find a number of tools that process the examples they use in this 
> document they claim did not get spam.
> 
> So before you suggest someone is not doing the research, I'd suggest you 
> make sure the research you site is up to date and/or credible.
> Until later, Geoffrey                     Registered Linux User #108567

Just because there may be newer technology out there doesn't mean the article 
is invalid. And, following your logic, if the article is outdated that means 
the ALE's method of handling email addresses is even more so.

If you believe that obfuscation (mentioned in the article) doesn't work:
1. It's at odds with what you have said previously.
2. It's at odds with the solution we are working towards on the ike server.
3. We should adopt a harvest proof system: Save the member addresses in a 
database related to a member ID and only post the member id (hyperlinked to a 
form that will enable those surfing the archives to contact a particular 
poster). *THAT* will always be harvest proof - and it is still obfuscation. 
This solution is slightly more difficult to implement, however, it also has 
more benefits.
-- 
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com