Re: [Evolution] I guess I am going to have to change my e-maill address.

[Paul's unattended mail <paul murphy-eo5svjlg cool fr nf>]

On 2012-08-27, Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam whitemice org> wrote:
> Yes, and why this whole notion of hidden and revolving and multiple
> addresses is just stupid;

Certainly not.  The rule of least privilege is state of the art.  The
philosophy is held in high regard by everyone sufficiently
knowledgeable about network security.

> suddenly it is very difficult for me to contact someone I have a
> legitimate reason to communicate with.

How so?  If it's difficult for you, you have a broken or inadequite
tool.  A proper tool enables you to supply whatever email address is
appropriate (which is not necessarily your internal address).

> I've had the address awilliam whitemice org for decades, never
> hidden it, it is published *everywhere* from PDF files to Usenet
> groups to mail list archives.  The SPAM level is pretty minimal.

This is because you've been forced to use an aggressive email firewall
(whether you know it or not).  If you need that kind of defense,
you've already screwed up on the disclosure.

> Please do not break e-mail, just learn to use the tools.
>
> For me it is (a) SPAMhause RBL, (b) greylist milter, and (c)

Spamhaus breaks email.  Spamhaus is used by those who haven't figured
out how to properly use email.  And the result is blocked legitimate
email due to crude spam defense mechanisms that are designed to save a
buck for large profit-driven providers.

Please, come to understand EFF principles.  The EFF condemns crude
blocking techniques that damage legitimate traffic.

> SPAMAssasin.  All pretty basic setup, requires basically zero
> care-and-feeding.

Indeed, it's easy for simple users, but advanced users have better
options.  Although I have spamassasin score my email, it rarely finds
anything malicious -- thanks to the rule of least privilege ensuring
that spam doesn't come in the first place.

> Any ISP or whomever should be able to provide an equivalent [or
> better].

An ISP is a poor choice for trusting your email.  ISPs are driven to
keep costs down, which means using sloppy techniques purely in the
interest of reducing their server load - they are not interested in
offering a quality service that enables users to see every legitimate
message (as this costs more money to do properly), so legit mail is
broken (this is the real damage done by spam, and yes, ISPs in effect
help spammers break email in this regard).