~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

4 3

My sourcehut address is now being spammed

Details
Message ID
<169796887990.7.10789659346882206445.199741057@ploum.eu>
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi everyone,

This is a topic that we mostly avoided so far but it seems we have to 
face it: my sourcehut email address is now being spammed.

Thanks to simplelogin.io, I’m using a different address for each 
webservice I use and never use that address elsewhere.

Having a relatively high-profile blog (in French), I’m a worthy target 
for spammers. Spammers use service that link a website with a list of 
addresses known to belong to the proprietary of the website. It is know 
clear that my sourcehut address has been linked to my website.

After what looked like random spam sent to my sorucehut address (even 
including empty mails from random address, usually used to check if the 
address reply or not), I’m now starting to receive SEO spam in French. 
The nail in the cuffin was a spam to optimize my SEO ranking to sell 
lifejackets.

This is a classic spam I receive because, in 2007, I blogged about 
security practices in computing, using the metaphor "Wearing a 
lifejacket in a train does not improve your security".

(see https://ploum.net/177-le-gilet-de-sauvetage-et-le-tgv/index.html )

So the question I’m asking myself is if Sourcehut could do better to 
protect email addresses?

Cheers,

Ploum
-- 
Ploum - Lionel Dricot
Blog: https://www.ploum.net
Livres: https://ploum.net/livres.html
Details
Message ID
<CWEVXRYDUOYM.18M6NMHIVUWBP@poldrack.dev>
In-Reply-To
<169796887990.7.10789659346882206445.199741057@ploum.eu> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Can confirm spam to my sourcehut address, but only 4 messages in total.
So not exactly what I would call "significant". Then again, I don't have
a high-profile blog or anything. Regarding "email-protection", the only
thing I could think of is redacting the address for non-logged-in users,
but that approach quickly falls apart, when you consider that the plain
message has to be available to try out patches and requiring a signup
for that goes kind-of against the entire point of sourcehut.

-- 
Moritz Poldrack
https://moritz.sh

> Results are not typical.
Details
Message ID
<crynjx2aqtfcg4ww557fpwtdhd3qifqkuhksmrvzuzc576kzvn@fvz57bok2z3m>
In-Reply-To
<169796887990.7.10789659346882206445.199741057@ploum.eu> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On 23/10/22 10:01AM, Ploum wrote:
> So the question I’m asking myself is if Sourcehut could do better to 
> protect email addresses?

I think this is a topic for the mail server administrator, not Sourcehut. For 
example, I use an email on my hosted domain, which uses SpamAssassin to handle 
spam. By using isync+msmtp and Neomutt/s-nail instead of an unsafe mail client 
(many GUI/web clients), and by adjusting SpamAssassin tresholds, I fine-tuned 
its configuration to the point I rarely receive spam or phishing email. Even 
when I receive new spam, I can easily spot it (without accidentally visiting 
any URLs) and make further adjustments to SpamAssassin configuration.
Details
Message ID
<169798654710.7.16974229435437614448.199838984@ploum.eu>
In-Reply-To
<CWEVXRYDUOYM.18M6NMHIVUWBP@poldrack.dev> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On 23/10/22 12:10, Moritz Poldrack wrote:
>Can confirm spam to my sourcehut address, but only 4 messages in total.
>So not exactly what I would call "significant". Then again, I don't have
>a high-profile blog or anything.Regarding "email-protection", the only

"high profile" doesn’t I’m invited to parties on luxury yachts ;-)

It only means that my "page rank" (or whatever it is called those days) 
is high enough to become a target for spammers wanting to either improve 
my SEO or to ask me to post on my blog with link to their own websites.

4 messages in years is not significative. For me, I can count 4 in the 
last 48h, which is very significative. It means that the address is in 
the spammers databases.

Fun fact: every single spam received so far is addressed to "~lioploum", 
which is a handle only used on sourcehut (and note the tilde).

>thing I could think of is redacting the address for non-logged-in users,
>but that approach quickly falls apart, when you consider that the plain
>message has to be available to try out patches and requiring a signup
>for that goes kind-of against the entire point of sourcehut.
>

That’s indeed a huge problem. Sourcehut is built around email and that’s 
very cool. Hiding emails in the webinterface might be a mitigation. 
Patches could still be downloaded but that would be one more step for 
the spammers. This may also be an option.

In the meantime, I’m considering simply changing my sourcehut email 
address and blocking the old one. 

What would be the effect of such measure ?

>-- 
>Moritz Poldrack
>https://moritz.sh
>
>> Results are not typical.



-- 
Ploum - Lionel Dricot
Blog: https://www.ploum.net
Livres: https://ploum.net/livres.html
Details
Message ID
<CWF5KSD339IF.2V1GXTVZFUDD1@poldrack.dev>
In-Reply-To
<169798654710.7.16974229435437614448.199838984@ploum.eu> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Sun Oct 22, 2023 at 4:55 PM CEST, Ploum wrote:
> In the meantime, I’m considering simply changing my sourcehut email 
> address and blocking the old one. 
>
> What would be the effect of such measure ?

The effects would likely be negligible. The only thing that you might
not get are older mailing-list conversations. Actually, you might even
get those, because your new list isn't in To: anymore

-- 
Moritz Poldrack
https://moritz.sh

> Read terms and conditions.
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)