List stats redone

Dotan Cohen dotancohen at
Sat Feb 16 10:04:04 UTC 2008

On 16/02/2008, Tim <ignored_mailbox at> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 16:16 -0600, Thomas Cameron wrote:
>  > Please check it out now?
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > I will reiterate that security through obscurity is silly, but here
>  > you go.  :-)
> Well, it's not really about "security", so the statement doesn't really
>  fit.  It's privacy, and obscurity and privacy go hand in hand, in the
>  normal run of things - don't tell, and it remains private.
>  Personally, I wouldn't even put <at> or <dot> or <com> clues into the
>  list, as well.  That's easy to automatically unmunge, and we (us humans)
>  can spot our own addresses easily enough without them.  I'd not even
>  space the parts apart, that still allows for simple guessing games with
>  unmunging about where to put parts of the address together (spammers
>  trying all the obvious permutations, regardless).
>  e.g. just "ignoredmailboxyahoo" would be enough to identify posting
>  stats, without giving any easy pickings to spammers.

Most people on this list and others have _names_ in addition to email
addresses. I can tell the posters name because it comes right before
<user at>, in fact, Gmail and many other email clients do
this automatically. So the list stats program can print the poster's
name, without posting his address. In the case of addresses with no
names, then post the address, or even just the user@ part without the

Dotan Cohen

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

More information about the fedora-list mailing list