[ale]OT It begins... (jumping into the middle)
groups at ChangingLINKS.com
Wed Feb 4 22:29:02 EST 2004
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 21:09, Kevin Krumwiede wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:24:52 -0500
> Jim Popovitch <jimpop at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > yourself exposed. The same concept applies to "obfuscating" email
> > addresses. If they can be read by a human, they can be read by a
> > machine. I like the image substitution idea, but remember it can be
> > OCR'ed... unless it is near impossibe to read (see above comments).
> You're right, they *can* be read by a machine. However, obfuscating
> them makes it less likely that they will be. There are countless ways
> of obfuscating an email address so that it can still be read by a human.
> Any given harvester bot will *not* be looking for every single
> variation. Likewise, something as simple as changing the name of a
> resource or running a server on a non-standard port may do nothing to
> stop a determined attacker specifically targeting your systems, but it
> *will* stop most worms, viruses, and skript kiddies dead in their
> tracks. If you evaluate risk as a product of how potentially damaging
> something could be vs. how likely it is to occur, then simple measures
> like these should not be discounted.
Krum . . . he KNOWS all of that, and yet he posts the objections anyway.
I explained it to him using car security. He understood. He agreed.
He understands that we don't have to treat emails with the same level of
security as our banking information . . .
I am beginning to think he is either pro-spam or he wants us to fail at
tighting up security just because he (seems to have) failed in the past.
Nonetheless, we will reach a solution (whether it is cool like graphical
obfuscation, or just the text based version that we already have implemented
on "ike") and the list will be better for it.
Wishing you Happiness, Joy and Laughter,
More information about the Ale