On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 06:14:30AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> It should also be pointed out that a spammer could easily subscribe
> directly to the list and get all the address information that way,
> completely by passing any archives.
>
> For completeness, the ASF's public archive policy, which we adhere to,
> is here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/public-archives.html
>
> Best,
> -Hyrum
At least that's a tiny bit more work for them to sign up for every email
list serve in the world. Harvesting openly published email addresses is
just too easy. They would ideally never appear anywhere in the first
place so they couldn't be mirrored. I understand your constrants but
I still think this is appalling from an engineering point of view and
won't participate if it means leaving a please spam me trail behind me.
Sorry,
Darren
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Darren,
> >
> > Over a dozen sites mirror our archives, usually by grabbing our published
> > mbox for the list. As a result, we cannot control how they publish the email
> > addresses contained within. It is also important for those mboxes to retain
> > the email addresses for archival purposes, and so those third-party systems
> > can allow proper replies (hopefully, only by humans, but as you've
> > discovered... they are not all perfect).
> >
> > Sorry for any inconvenience, but please don't blame us. We do try to respect
> > your privacy in our own web archive system.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > On Jun 18, 2012 5:10 AM, <svn_at_feb17.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Less than 2 months after using this mailing list I've started getting spam
> >> to the custom email address I used to post here. I think it's terrible
> >> practice to openly publish email addresses in easily harvestable form. I'll
> >> be /dev/nulling this address and unsubscribing. I hope you could reconsider
> >> that policy,
> >>
> >> Darren
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:05:52PM -0700, daz wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:58:10AM -0500, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Philip Martin
> >> > > <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> > > > svn_at_feb17.org writes:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> A little more information on this. I have probably rebuilt svn
> >> > > >> about 20 times tonight from scratch, with
> >> >
> >> > Thanks to everyone who contributed useful clues on this. Using the
> >> > current code tree and rebuilding with different versions and combinations of
> >> > libraries I narrowed the problem down to the apr version. Either the build
> >> > of my earlier apr 1.3.9 or the version itself was the problem. The test
> >> > suite was super helpful and the explanation about XFAIL vs FAIL. I have a
> >> > build using apr 1.4.6 that passes all the tests it should pass and more
> >> > importantly actually works. It might be helpful to print a reminder at
> >> > the end of the default make step suggesting running the tests if this is a
> >> > common problem. There are a lot of dependencies and some of them seem to be
> >> > a bit finicky.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> > Darren
>
>
>
> --
>
> uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
> http://www.uberSVN.com/
Received on 2012-06-18 16:16:36 CEST