From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Feb 8 02:42:47 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F943AA0D22 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:42:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qjail1@a1poweruser.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53267185C for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:42:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qjail1@a1poweruser.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 53153AA0D21; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:42:47 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BB3AA0D20 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:42:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qjail1@a1poweruser.com) Received: from s119.web-hosting.com (s119.web-hosting.com [162.213.253.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C1A3185B; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 02:42:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qjail1@a1poweruser.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=a1poweruser.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=pFoK7B0ncFmEd1x1dmZntNJf1jAdAi5gPFTJTi5/ZgQ=; b=fg4R7YZO+sdhoprEPJr+cJZpRk 3996gaOHK72dzM5GQhlOeGTzCPxKIhlNJxDBOzhy5nvwBDQ3fWREItTDwCMMeYptBpg9b/FyZZSuo vUgLV5p5y63noTiiDTwONTS5bcPfVuFY6xIxklBvZozbgUtYISDyW1nPR4M36cG+enX4=; Received: from [120.29.76.9] (port=1154 helo=[192.168.1.149]) by server119.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aSbmf-0012G6-4L; Sun, 07 Feb 2016 21:42:39 -0500 Message-ID: <56B80099.3070606@a1poweruser.com> Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 10:42:33 +0800 From: qjail1 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kurt Jaeger CC: ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org, qjail1@a1poweruser.com Subject: Re: port maintainer address References: <56B56114.1000401@a1poweruser.com> <20160206063406.GP46096@home.opsec.eu> In-Reply-To: <20160206063406.GP46096@home.opsec.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server119.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - a1poweruser.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server119.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: qjail1@a1poweruser.com X-Authenticated-Sender: server119.web-hosting.com: qjail1@a1poweruser.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 02:42:47 -0000 Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >> A year ago I was receiving loads of spam email on the maintainer email >> addresses used in the ports makefile. I created bug tickets to change >> the user name part of the email address for all the ports I maintain, >> but some how I missed the qjail2 port. Now that port says its maintained >> by ports@FreeBSD.org and the spam email has stopped. >> >> Since bugzilla uses the port maintainer email address as the way to >> identify the port maintainer, I no longer can post updates to qjail2 >> port. > > We'll understand that the patch comes from you, so just submit it. > >> Why has Freebsd NOT done something to protect their port maintainers >> from spam. > > Because if you think that not having the email addresses in the port > protects you from spam, this probably will not scale. Spam defense > is not a task the FreeBSD project can also take on, in addition > to all the others. > In todays world the normal, customary, and prudent methodology is to protect a users email address from public view so its increasingly more difficult for it to be harvested for targets of spam. I ask WHY is the Freebsd ports system using a very old methodology that was designed over 20 years ago, before the birth of spam. The majority of customer websites and programming development websites all have protected their user email addresses, WHY NOT FREEBSD? It's way past the time that this problem gets the attention it deserves. Lets at least create a project to analyze the ports system "Maintainer email address" to see just what would be involved in populating it with a dummy value so every place it is viewable to the public the real content is masked, this includes the down loadable ports tree. Lets not have any more defeatist comments to let the sleeping dog lay. Thats what got us in this position in the first place.