From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Kangas Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#46472: Make lisp/mail/uce.el obsolete Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 06:25:19 -0600 Message-ID: References: <83im6we6v8.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29717"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 46472@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 13 13:26:10 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAu01-0007cU-Ns for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 13:26:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34338 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAu00-0000i9-Py for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 07:26:08 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAtzu-0000i0-Nw for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 07:26:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50347) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAtzu-0006hF-Gz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 07:26:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lAtzu-00054V-ED for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 07:26:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Kangas Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:26:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46472 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 46472-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46472.161321912819449 (code B ref 46472); Sat, 13 Feb 2021 12:26:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 46472) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Feb 2021 12:25:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33660 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lAtzM-00053d-E6 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 07:25:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pj1-f42.google.com ([209.85.216.42]:34246) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lAtzK-00053N-6z for 46472@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 07:25:27 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pj1-f42.google.com with SMTP id my11so1341831pjb.1 for <46472@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 04:25:26 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3lz0aKaI7KukfbycogzUc+DzbRJvZeydc/mmuy+8XRc=; b=gromkUFvr/K0LYh5+HOpdsiALpwoWy9XH3Y1jEFCkYFRGx9uzYpNA99y2JVPR5HcHF z4/3b5kGZwpsER7zUEZUrBdxgZuqctaGJuo+cJy7LVYwDonOO1u8EqW/x42SKiPfNalj aeak/XtnYinvPPbW2jSF2i6enOkJqSXjkFLPQAiX/p50aWo3e/j2Cy9W+UJHQDkqj2M9 8fLB/zC1wEyRROqyVQn22eGe8e6/rnN0OIVrRb64tJbuqyrAEVcAw2PEeR+g7LqgeXf4 JiSnTqH5t3u4EImPhVnMfT7ZkkBahBF8Bc8eHxivKPNDjQLu27RCxr5e/oA99AsPwEUX pKjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mwo+FRBWCxYm9IUq9tTEqdthsUPKvtc8JFhJZPJdzzxAwTdEa TGT0MV2c7zodupSj4Sf1R2t364dXo0vI7IxLPDI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7XaB9VWyk7NODR6B/HoogDYtb9Ks5qWIL2qYJslgcxStu8GQWwg8osgEv6f3nTAR+GnmFyTyaJAcnmztW8qY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ee44:b029:e2:bb4a:9ffb with SMTP id 4-20020a170902ee44b02900e2bb4a9ffbmr6894606plo.39.1613219120254; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 04:25:20 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from 753933720722 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sat, 13 Feb 2021 06:25:19 -0600 In-Reply-To: <83im6we6v8.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:199921 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > What you say above was always true: replying to spam bears an inherent > risk. This didn't change in any way, so how will we justify > obsoleting this package now? I think the methods for dealing with spam has developed quite a bit since 1996, so I'm not quite sure I follow this argument. The justification is that no one should waste time replying to spam; they should use a spam filter. If you are looking for strictly technical reasons for obsoleting it, of course they exist too: Anyone that wants to reply to an email using pre-written drafts can do so using skeleton, tempo, abbrev, etc. Those are better tools that cover this use-case. > I don't think our personal opinions on which is or isn't useful > practices are reasons good enough to make it harder for others to use > those practices if they so wish. Whether or not replying to spam is good or bad is not really a matter of personal opinion; it is objectively bad. You can find any number of security and privacy experts that could explain why: - You will confirm your email address is valid, ensuring you get more spam. - Sender address is probably fake. (For example, you might unwittingly participate in flooding someones mailbox. The abuse@domain and postmaster@domain is also unlikely to be able to act on your reply.) - You open yourself up to various kinds of social engineering. - You might leak information (e.g. on your email server and setup). Encouraging this bad practice by shipping uce.el puts unknowing users at risk, and promotes a bad method of dealing with spam. We should instead discourage this bad practice by moving it to obsolete/. > It isn't our prerogative to tell others what to do or not to do in > these circumstances. Anyone would of course still free to continue doing whatever they want (for example by making a copy of the obsolete libary for their own use). But I think we should be equally free to (strongly) recommend against bad practices.