Great Circle Associates List-Managers
(May 2001)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: test messages etc
From: Tim Pierce <twp @ rootsweb . com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:20:10 -0400
To: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui @ plaidworks . com>
Cc: J C Lawrence <claw @ kanga . nu>, Nick Simicich <njs @ scifi . squawk . com>, List-Managers @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com>; from chuqui@plaidworks.com on Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:42:51PM -0700
References: <1249.991250594@kanga.nu> <200105302041.f4UKf0108118@lists.apple.com>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 01:42:51PM -0700, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> 
> What's do folks think about this? What kind of address munging is 
> adequate? Or should addresses be fully cloaked, or perhaps accessible 
> only through some CGI? Imagine inserting those addresses in a CGI, and 
> you can only e-mail through a lookup through the database -- you could 
> then track (and ban) abusers, and limit how much of that address data a 
> user could get to.

This is essentially what yahooeonelistgroups does: you can send
mail to the author of a message by clicking on the link over their
name and filling out a WWW form.  You don't get to see the e-mail
address, but you do get to send them a short message.  It's not a
bad solution, and probably the way we'll go when/if our existing 
measures prove ineffective.




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: user unknown with error 450?
From: Chuq Von Rospach <chuqui@plaidworks.com>
Next: Re: test messages etc
From: Tim Pierce <twp@rootsweb.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: test messages etc
From: Tim Pierce <twp@rootsweb.com>
Next: Re: test message,or reply's to, which worse?
From: "Roger Fajman" <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com