Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Arno Welzel Newsgroups: comp.lang.php Subject: Re: Check for military time Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 07:46:26 +0100 Lines: 64 Message-ID: <5642E442.8040103@arnowelzel.de> References: <56361614.4060009@arnowelzel.de> <563636B1.6000201@arnowelzel.de> <56370D47.8080600@arnowelzel.de> <5637952B.8030905@arnowelzel.de> <5637A5CC.6060209@arnowelzel.de> <56383C62.2060805@arnowelzel.de> <-t6dnSiPQqt6lN3LnZ2dnUU7-Yv88Pjv@posted.internetamerica> <5640677C.7020401@arnowelzel.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 9Jehdzt3k+9PqOWI3pmWOgtpoIt300e6KwUImpG1i1AJvtLg1K Cancel-Lock: sha1:XSyiefffnEtLkuZBDsVduBm307s= In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.php:15863 Gordon Burditt schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 06:42: >>>> You take yourself way too seriously. You really believe spammers will >>>> scan the body of usenet postings to find working e-mail-addresses? >>> >>> I do, and I think I've proved it. I put an email address like this: >>> >>> spamsucks.f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15@burditt.org >>> >>> into the body of a USENET post, and scan the server logs for that >>> address after a few days. I don't ALWAYS get email at an address >>> lik that, but it happens sometimes. I've seen spams with such an >>> address show up even after a few years from the one time I put that >>> address in a post. The chance of a spammer guessing that long mess >>> of hex digits is a lot less than spammers extracting email addresses >>> from USENET posts (and, for that matter, from HTML on web sites). >> >> I stand corrected. But I believe this is fetched from websites who >> provide usenet archives (Google groups etc.) and of not via NNTP. > > It doesn't matter where it's fetched from or what protocol is used. > It's rude to expose someone else's email address unmunged with > intent to get them spammed, or even with reckless disregard for > whether they get spammed or not. It's even more rude to use munged addresses. See: Spam is something we all have to deal with and address munging instead of a working spam filter just dumps the problem to others who will then get the NDRs caused by the invalid address etc.. BTW: usenet@arnowelzel.de is valid and will be read. And spam to this address is way less than to other addresses I don't use for usenet postings. > To make this remotely relevant to PHP, I do recall someone clever > wrote a cute PHP page that would serve up web pages with random > text, random links, and random mailto: links that pointed at a > honeypot mail server specified by the person installing the software. > > If you expected this to follow a normal filesystem hierarchy, well, > you soon discovered that it actually had infinite depth. A web > crawler doing depth-first descent ended up with a URL like > http://my.example.com/honeypot/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/page.php > . Actually it just responded to *ANY* URL under a specific directory > and used relative links 1 directory level lower. The code came > with instructions to exclude that directory in robots.txt so Google's > and other legitimate web crawlers wouldn't get stuck in an infinite > loop. Those obey robots.txt; spammers, at least most of them, > don't. Nice idea. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de