groff
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Savannah-help-public] Re: [Groff] Mailing list munging code


From: Sylvain Beucler
Subject: Re: [Savannah-help-public] Re: [Groff] Mailing list munging code
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:37:18 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

Hello,


Do you refer to public or private archives? (they are not managed the
same way; public=>mhonarc, private=>mailman).

Also, can you give us links to sample posts that illustrate your
concerns?

-- 
Sylvain


On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 08:10:20AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> 
> > Looking back in the archives for the original posting of the MN
> > macros, I noticed (in the post at
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2002-12/msg00097.html) that
> > the references to internal -ms macros had been identified by the
> > mailing-list manager as email addresses and protected against spam,
> > so that address@hidden, for instance, is turned into
> > address@hidden  Is there any way to stop this happening
> > - and to recover the unmunged versions of past posts?
> 
> A very good question.  The mailman version on lists.gnu.org only
> offers this setting:
> 
>   obscure_addresses (privacy): Show member addresses so they're not
>                                directly recognizable as email
>                                addresses?
> 
>   Setting this option causes member email addresses to be transformed
>   when they are presented on list web pages (both in text and as
>   links), so they're not trivially recognizable as email addresses.
>   The intention is to prevent the addresses from being snarfed up by
>   automated web scanners for use by spammers.
> 
> Basically, this is a good option and should be active.  On the other
> hand, the used regexp to recognize email addresses is not
> sophisticated enough IMHO.  address@hidden' isn't a valid global email
> adress; I think that mailman should check whether there is a dot in
> the part after the `@'.
> 
> Savannah hackers, what can we do to get an improved behaviour?  And
> how can attachments survive unmodified (this is, staying as extra
> files with a link to it in the archived mail)?




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]