6 Dec
2002
6 Dec
'02
3:40 p.m.
[2] The user types in the string and presses Submit,
and it runs the CGI
...
Now the script generates a page with the real email address as a mailto
hyperlink. The user may bookmark this page if he/she wishes.
Why expose the address at all? How about you send the (plain text only)
note on to the addressee w/o disclosing the address. If the recipient
wants the sender to know their address, they'll respond to them.
The same script could be used if there are any pages on the classiccmp
web site where a user could/should have an opportunity to send mail,
e.g. to the site maintainer, members listed as contacts or resources
for system XYZ, etc.
Just a thought,
--Steve.
6 Dec
6 Dec
7:41 p.m.
Why expose the address at all? How about you send the
(plain text only)
note on to the addressee w/o disclosing the address. If the recipient
wants the sender to know their address, they'll respond to them.
I think this is a great idea.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Immigration is the sincerest form of flattery. -- Jack Paar ----------------
8:39 p.m.
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Steve Jones wrote:
Why expose the address at all? How about you send the
(plain text only)
note on to the addressee w/o disclosing the address. If the recipient
wants the sender to know their address, they'll respond to them.
Here's an idea that's based on this one. The e-mail address in the
message is replaced with a unique ID for each unique e-mail address in the
CC archives. The sender clicks on the link and a CGI form asks them for
THEIR e-mail address. After a look-up in a simple database, the ID is
translated into the actual e-mail address and a short message is sent to
the original poster saying "such-and-such from <email address> wants to
contact you".
All this can be easily implemented in PHP (CGI is so passe).
I still think it's easier to just find all spammers and rip their small
intestines out, then make chitlins with them and feed them back to them.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
7 Dec
7 Dec
12:53 a.m.
On Friday, December 6, 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
All this can be easily implemented in PHP (CGI is so
passe).
Yeah, but CGI is the only way I know how to generate dynamic pages at the
moment. I'd love to create a nice PHP-based, database-backed site with cool
features like the most recent posts spilling down the front page in full
blog style, but it would take me 2-4 weeks of learning time plus development
time. It could be February or March before this was done. WWW development
just isn't where I've been for the last 7 years.
Maybe that's what I need to do. First, get something that's (a) simple, (b)
consistent, and (c) doesn't suck -- put it up there soon (wouldn't take
long), and then start working on something better and more time-consuming.
I guess I could always Learn ASP.NET in 24 Hours! Just kidding...
--
Jeffrey Sharp
11:03 a.m.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
Yeah, but CGI is the only way I know how to generate
dynamic pages at the
moment. I'd love to create a nice PHP-based, database-backed site with cool
features like the most recent posts spilling down the front page in full
blog style, but it would take me 2-4 weeks of learning time plus development
time. It could be February or March before this was done. WWW development
just isn't where I've been for the last 7 years.
Actually, it would take days. PHP is just (almost) Perl but even easier
to program in. Jay should already have PHP loaded onto the CC web server.
Maybe that's what I need to do. First, get
something that's (a) simple,
(b) consistent, and (c) doesn't suck -- put it up there soon (wouldn't
take long), and then start working on something better and more
time-consuming.
It's amazing we haven't been hit by floods of spam yet.
I guess I could always Learn ASP.NET in 24 Hours! Just
kidding...
I found it quite easy to jump into PHP because the language is basically
an amalgamation of C++ and Perl. I can't say the same about ASP or .NET
(which I haven't looked at and probably never will).
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
1:30 p.m.
It's amazing we haven't been hit by floods of
spam yet.
Yes.
By the way, don't count on any of this preventing it anyhow. Even
if you guard your email address jealously and don't use it on any
unprotected mailing list archives, someone somewhere will post
to a mailing list and give your email address in the clear, by way
of trying to help out someone else.
8 Dec
8 Dec
7:26 p.m.
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, Sellam Ismail wrote:
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
You're right! I spent some time I shouldn't have looking at the PHP
reference, and it looks very easy to pick up. The plan, then, is to put up
something static and simple (but better than the current contents ... ugh!),
and follow that with a more dynamic site in PHP later.
Thanks, all, for your ideas. Back to schoolwork...
--
Jeffrey Sharp
Yeah, but CGI is the only way I know how to
generate dynamic pages at the
moment. I'd love to create a nice PHP-based, database-backed site with
cool features like the most recent posts spilling down the front page in
full blog style, but it would take me 2-4 weeks of learning time plus
development time. It could be February or March before this was done. WWW
development just isn't where I've been for the last 7 years.
Actually, it would take days. PHP is just (almost) Perl but even easier to
program in.
7 Dec
7 Dec
12:32 a.m.
On Friday, December 6, 2002, Steve Jones wrote:
Why expose the address at all? How about you send the
(plain text only)
note on to the addressee w/o disclosing the address. If the recipient
wants the sender to know their address, they'll respond to them.
Well, that *is* a easier way to do it. I had thought of that, but I wasn't
sure if there were enough steps involved. What I don't want is a person
sending spam *though* this interface. How safe do you think this solution is
against that?
It *would* be easier to implement and less cumbersome. Not that the original
idea was hard...
The same script could be used if there are any pages
on the classiccmp web
site where a user could/should have an opportunity to send mail, e.g. to
the site maintainer, members listed as contacts or resources for system
XYZ, etc.
I'm liking this more and more...
--
Jeffrey Sharp
11 a.m.
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2002, Steve Jones wrote:
It's not. I have jack-asses posting spam to my VCF BBS and through my
feedback form occasionally. That's why I made the VCF 5.0 BBS moderated
(to thwart the retard spammers who are trying to reach all 5 people who
use the VCF BBS).
Simulation of the above:
You are trying to be reached by <bigpenis(a)chinanet.com.cn> regarding
"ENLARGE YOUR PENIS WITH NEW GROWTH FORMULA!!!"
It's still spam.
The best way to do it is to ensure that a human has to do something to
make ANY contact with the e-mail address.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Why expose the address at all? How about you send
the (plain text only)
note on to the addressee w/o disclosing the address. If the recipient
wants the sender to know their address, they'll respond to them.
Well, that *is* a easier way to do it. I had thought of that, but I wasn't
sure if there were enough steps involved. What I don't want is a person
sending spam *though* this interface. How safe do you think this solution is
against that?
1:21 p.m.
Why expose the
address at all? How about you send the (plain text
only) note on to the addressee w/o disclosing the address. If the
recipient wants the sender to know their address, they'll respond to
them.
Well, that *is* a easier way to do it. I had thought of that, but I
wasn't sure if there were enough steps involved. What I don't want is a
person sending spam *though* this interface. How safe do you think this
solution is against that?
8063
days inactive
8065
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
classiccmp＠crash.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
jss＠subatomix.com -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu