Jarrid Gross writes:
> T.J., I realize that there is not a lot you can do, but I
> volunteer that we could retro-actively alter the email addresses
> within the archives and make them un-minable.
>
> I could write some code to do a generic substitution of text
> containing the (at) symbol.
>
> take an archive file full of email addresses like joe_blow(at)url.net
> and turn them into joe_blow(at)url.net and the like.
>
> Anyone have an opinion of the efficacy of this?
Sounds reasonable to me. All the archive processing is done on a Unix
machine, so it's trivial to write a sed script to do the substitution
before the archives are posted to the web. It is also relatively
easy to process all the old archives. I just ran a quick test and it
appears that changing the (at)-sign doesn't break the hypermail links.
That is good news. So I will change all the old archives, and modify
my archival scripts to do this for all future archives. I'll notify
the list when complete.
There is a lot of spam sent to the list address, but is rejected since
only members can post.
FWIW, I'm on 7 or 8 different lists, and don't get near the spam that
Jarrid is seeing. I think my company is doing some filtering at the
firewall, though. If your mail program has built-in filtering, it can
be of great help. A couple of well-written filter rules can zorch a
high percentage of spam. Also, Brightmail.com offers spam filtering
services for both ISPs and individuals. My personal ISP, hiwaay.net,
uses Brightmail and it works VERY well. I used to get a lot of spam
at my hiwaay account, and now get almost none. If your ISP isn't
using Brightmail or a similar service, ask them about it.
-- T.J. Higgins tjhiggin(at)ingr.com Huntsville, AL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 08:20:28 CDT