[ale]OT It begins... (jumping into the middle)

[ChangingLINKS.com]

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,
Drew Brown
http://www.ChangingLINKS.com