xvendor - Re: obfuscating e-mails in RPM specs

Openwall Project		/home Owl JtR Pro crypt pam_passwdqc tcb phpass scanlogd popa3d msulogin / Linux BIND / advisories presentations / services donations / wordlists passwords / community lists wiki CVSweb mirrors signatures
bringing security into open environments

Order Openwall GNU/*/Linux 2.0 on a CD with delivery worldwide

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:55:34 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: xvendor@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: obfuscating e-mails in RPM specs

On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 08:24:57PM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote:
> Solar Designer wrote:
> >The syntax we might use is this:
> >
> >* Sat Sep 24 2005 Solar Designer <solar at owl.openwall.com> 3.6.1p2-owl15
> 
> This is a bit too common. Most harvesting engines will understand it if 
> they try at all.

I've been using the above syntax on websites for a few years and it's
worked well so far.  I realize that it's only a matter of time until
_some_ (definitely not all) harvesting bots will start to pick it up.

> Others are doing the same with various syntaxes.

In RPM spec files?

If you're aware of some examples, please point me at them.

Anyway, I am now converting our spec files to use the following syntax:

-* Fri May 06 2005 Solar Designer <solar@....openwall.com> 1.0.3-owl1
+* Fri May 06 2005 Solar Designer <solar-at-owl.openwall.com> 1.0.3-owl1

E-mail addresses not in RPM %changelog's (in comments, in documentation
files, etc.) will continue to use spaces instead of the dashes.

Thanks to everyone who responded!

-- 
Alexander

Please check out the xvendor mailing list charter.