[SURBL-Discuss] To MUNGE to not to MUNGE

William Stearns wstearns at pobox.com
Wed Sep 1 15:17:15 CEST 2004

Good afternoon, Ryan,

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Ryan Thompson wrote:

> OK. Good discussion so far! By all means, keep the comments coming.
> Right now, though, I'd like to formalize my current thinking into two
> cases:
> 1.  This mailing list traffic ought to be exempt from spam filters, and
>      we ought not to be required to munge domains sent to this mailing
>      list. So, I suggest we send bare domains to this list, without
>      munging.

	I get the impression you're pushing hard for no munging at all to 
this list.  Are you using an automated script to extract domains?  If so, 
how hard would it be to add:

sed -e 's/-MUNGED//'

	to the beginning?

>      <P>However, when sending domains via <EM>private email</EM>, it may
>      be necessary to munge the domain to prevent the recipient's filter
>      from hitting your email. Use a simple munging system that preserves
>      the human readability of the domain, while preventing filters from
>      picking up the URI. For example:</P>
>      <PRE>spamdomain.com-MUNGED</PRE>
>      <P>Note that the -MUNGED should appear at the end (or the beginning)
>      of the URI, not in the middle, as this makes it difficult to read,
>      and copy/paste the domain.</P>

	Those may still be caught by other filters.  That's the whole 
point of sticking "-MUNGED" in the middle, or my suggestion of a single 
space before ".com", which won't affect human readability.  What was your 
opinion of that idea?
	Perhaps you didn't see the last time I proposed it because my last 
message ended up in you spam folder.  *griiiiiin*
	- Bill

	"Freedom of the press is limited to those who own one."
	-- A. J. Liebling
William Stearns (wstearns at pobox.com).  Mason, Buildkernel, freedups, p0f,
rsync-backup, ssh-keyinstall, dns-check, more at:   http://www.stearns.org

More information about the Discuss mailing list