bug#13194: 24.2; show-stopper in report-emacs-bug

bug#13194: 24.2; show-stopper in report-emacs-bug

[Devon Sean McCullough]

Dear GNU people:

*PLEASE DEFEND BUG-GNU-EMACS REPORTERS' ADDRESSES*

Current system: Report an Emacs bug after supper, get spam before breakfast.

		Peace
			--Devon

P.S. Thinly masked addresses like

Reported by: Devon Sean McCullough <Emacs-Hacker2012 <at> jovi.net>

are grist for the robo harvesters' spam mills.

bug#13194: 24.2; show-stopper in report-emacs-bug

[Chong Yidong]

> P.S. Thinly masked addresses like
> Reported by: Devon Sean McCullough <Emacs-Hacker2012 <at> jovi.net>
> are grist for the robo harvesters' spam mills.

Maybe the debbugs.gnu.org web interface doesn't need to show email
addresses anymore; Emacs developers can always get them via the SOAP
interface, using the debbugs package.

Any objections?

bug#13194: 24.2; show-stopper in report-emacs-bug

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 23:43:43 +0800
> Cc: Devon Sean McCullough <Emacs-Hacker2012@jovi.net>
> 
> > P.S. Thinly masked addresses like
> > Reported by: Devon Sean McCullough <Emacs-Hacker2012 <at> jovi.net>
> > are grist for the robo harvesters' spam mills.
> 
> Maybe the debbugs.gnu.org web interface doesn't need to show email
> addresses anymore; Emacs developers can always get them via the SOAP
> interface, using the debbugs package.
> 
> Any objections?

No objections here, as long as:

 1) downloading messages in mbox format still shows the original
    addresses without any "disguise", and

 2) whatever disguises the addresses does NOT also munge anything that
    looks like an address, but isn't, like @code{foo} etc.

bug#13194: 24.2; show-stopper in report-emacs-bug

[Glenn Morris]

reassign 13194 debbugs.gnu.org
stop

Devon Sean McCullough wrote:

> Current system: Report an Emacs bug after supper, get spam before breakfast.

I'm sympathetic, but think this is an exaggeration.
If I search for your unobscured literal email address, I find several
hits from sites such as: anonscm.debian.org, www.update.uu.se,
repo.or.cz, bitbucket.org, nntp.intelliseek.com, etc. Many of these are
mirrors of the Emacs source code (your address is in ChangeLogs), or of
the gnu.emacs.bug newsgroup (you've posted before with the same
address). None of these sites are under our control, and further
obscuring debbugs.gnu.org will have zero impact on them.

Currently, there are 663 stored Spam messages that arrived on
debbugs.gnu.org since November 1. The vast majority were sent to
bug-gnu-emacs@gnu etc. Only a tiny fraction (9) were sent to
###@debbugs.gnu addresses. In fact there are just two bugs that got spam
(5475 and 3643). Since the ###@debbugs addresses appear on the site with
the same obscuration, I conclude that it is fairly effective. If your
initial hyperbole were true, I would expect to see many more ###@debbugs
addresses getting spam, and many more recent bugs.

But I'm certainly open for specific suggestions for improvement.