Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/07/12/11:59:56
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:36:41AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:32:03AM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, Elvin Peterson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> --- Larry Hall wrote:
> >> >> > Lots of email clients do this automatically.
> >> >>
> >> >> This should be done server side, by the mailing list
> >> >> manager. If you subscribe to any of the sourceforge
> >> >> lists, you will know that they do this automatically.
> >> >> Much better than requesting each person to do it
> >> >> everytime (something always gets through and then it
> >> >> is spam city).
> >> >
> >> >Elvin,
> >> >
> >> >This wasn't an arbitrary decision. Both ways have been tried, and, in
> >> >general, it was not possible to reliably munge e-mail addresses (and
> >> >*only* e-mail addresses) in the archived messages. This garbled the
> >> >message contents, and so was turned off. The headers are still munged...
> >>
> >> I still have it on my back burner to do some kind of intelligent munging
> >> of email. I wrote a sample filter that sort of worked but it needed more
> >> intelligence to be really useful.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately real life has been stomping hard on me in the last few months
> >> so I haven't gotten around to doing this. I would love to not have to
> >> keep telling people not to quote raw email addresses, though.
> >>
> >> cgf
> >
> >Great. Lacking the information, I didn't want to make any statements
> >about your degree of interest in this, but in light of the above my
> >earlier sentense should probably say
> >
> >"...the list maintainers will be grateful for any help in doing this, and
> >will probably want to try out suitably tested filters..."
> >
> >If anyone volunteers to help, I'm assuming you'd be willing to provide the
> >sample filter as a basis, as well as the information on where to send
> >patches, etc.
>
> While the free software, collaborative philsophy is usually a good thing,
> this really requires a few concentrated hours from me to hack on the
> sourceware spam filters. I wouldn't want to have someone else learn
> its intricacies.
>
> cgf
I realize that. That's why I said "the sample filter", not "the whole set
of filters". In fact, I'm sure if anyone could simply provide you with a
(tested[*]) perl regular expression that would more or less reliably match
the reply lead-in strings, it would be an enormous help. Just trying to
make your life a bit easier here. :-)
Igor
[*] A good testing strategy would be to grab the whole Cygwin mailing list
archives and run the RE on all the message bodies, then visually inspect
the resulting lines to make sure only the lead-ins are matched, and
compare this with a dumb RE that matches anything looking like an e-mail
address to see how many lead-ins were missed. Ideally, the latter number
will be minimized. Come to think of it, this doesn't even require any
knowledge of the sourceware SPAM filters...
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha AT cs DOT nyu DOT edu
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ igor AT watson DOT ibm DOT com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -