[Dixonary] OT: unintended exposure of email addresses?

[davidh]

I did a google search on

[ "(dot)" site:tapcis.com/forums ]

I got thousands of hits. The email addresses appearing were in the (AT) plus (DOT) form.

I am assuming that this is intentional and maybe has something to do with the fact that the dixonary game here is intended to work together with the corresponding google group and with email. I have not followed the development of the communication amongst dixonary players here over the years is probably why it seemed strange to me that my email address appeared in a couple messages in the 'parlor'.

So my question is "Is this a way of 'publishing' email addresses automated for dixonary?"

[Paul Keating]

David,

Full marks for pointing this out.

This has nothing to do with Dixonary, as far as I can tell, except
accidentally. Those same messages when viewed on Google Groups are disguised
(for example, kea... (AT) acm (DOT) org), with a hyperlink at the bottom of the message
to allow you to reply to the author without being able to see the full
address.

When Google Groups forwards messages to group members they appear in the
emails in full.

The Dixonary Google Group forwards these messages to tapcis.com, and I have
to assume that the vBulletin software that runs the tapcis.com forums thinks
the (AT) ... (DOT) notation is a sufficient disguise. The reason there
appears to be a link with the game is that (apparently) our Google Group is
the only one in the world that has a crossposting relationship with a forum
website that runs vBulletin.

I don't fret much over having my email address available in this way
anymore, because the address is as old as the Internet, and already figures
on so many spammers' lists that a few more more won't hurt.

But I can imagine that some other players will be less calm about it.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague

[Dodi Schultz]

Paul, I'm just curious, and you seem to understand what the relationship is.

I don't understand why our game is still sent to the tapcis.com website.
It's essentially a dead site, except for a few people who reminisce there;
as far as I can see, even Judy Russell, who set up the site, doesn't hang
out there anymore. Is it just to kind of memorialize the old days?

(I was part of the old days, too, but . . . )

Someone who wants another view or wants to check on what's been posted can
just swing by the GoogleGroups site.

—Dodi

[Stephen Dixon]

The link seems worthwhile, if only as the way that old denizens can
rediscover the group. I went looking for Tapcis and put in my first contact
through the site.

steve d

Btw, Happy New Year, everybody.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:

>
> Paul, I'm just curious, and you seem to understand what the relationship
> is.
>
> I don't understand why our game is still sent to the tapcis.com website.
> It's essentially a dead site, except for a few people who reminisce there;
> as far as I can see, even Judy Russell, who set up the site, doesn't hang
> out there anymore. Is it just to kind of memorialize the old days?
>
> (I was part of the old days, too, but . . . )
>
> Someone who wants another view or wants to check on what's been posted can
> just swing by the GoogleGroups site.
>
> —Dodi
>
>

[Dodi Schultz]

Steve Dixon wrote:

> The link [with the tapcis.com site] seems worthwhile, if only as the
> way that old denizens can rediscover the group. I went looking for
> Tapcis and put in my first contact through the site.

You can also Google "dixonary"; the fourth item is it (the first three are
very obviously NOT it).

[Guerri Stevens]

If you are looking for the Dixonary game, it is true that a Google
search will work. But if you were looking for the replacement for the
old TAPCIS forum itself, intending to participate, that's a different
story, and I think that's at least partly what Steve was saying.

I am not sure how long tapcis.com will keep going. Like you, I found
that aside from the Dixonary players, it is a dead place. Very little
going on last time I looked, and some of the key people haven't been
there in ages. I hope they are OK, and not ailing in some fashion.

Guerri

Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
> You can also Google "dixonary"; the fourth item is it (the first three
> are very obviously NOT it).

[Dodi Schultz]

Guerri Stevens wrote:

> I am not sure how long tapcis.com will keep going. Like you, I found
> that aside from the Dixonary players, it is a dead place. Very little
> going on last time I looked, and some of the key people haven't been
> there in ages. I hope they are OK, and not ailing in some fashion.

I share your hope, but I suspect that everybody has simply drifted away
because of course there's no point to the site anymore, no reason for its
existence.

—Dodi

[Paul Keating]

It was originally like that because the sysops intended The Parlor to move
there along with the other sections of the old CS forum, but because it was
presented as a surprise, a lot of us didn't know about it beforehand, and so
alternative accommodation for the game had already been arranged at Yahoo.
So now we had two venues for a single game, with some players preferring one
over the other. And it wasn't simply a matter of preferring the colour
scheme. The vBulletin software at tapcis.com had much better message
threading than Yahoo. But Yahoo had a proper Files section, which was
superior to vBulletin's ascii-only "sticky messages". And Yahoo had an email
interface, while vBulletin didn't, and some players didn't want to log on to
any website to play.

A fair amount of feverish work was done to set up a cross-posting
relationship, so that it didn't matter which site you preferred, you still
saw all the messages from both. And it has worked remarkably well,
considering, even surviving the migration to Google.

The original reasons for preferring one venue over the other are now largely
moot. Google's message threading is really rather good, assuming everyone
uses a modern mail client. And the Google group no longer has a Files
section: we had to move that stuff to Google Sites, which is where
dixonary.net lives.

One hardy perennial is a bug in vBulletin that assigns the same email
message ID to two messages posted in quick succession. (It is a bug, not a
feature, because the RFC says mail clients must not do that.) Google relies
on the IDs being distinct. So when it gets two with the same ID it only
displays one of them.

The last time this happened was Round 2236 (last September), and, as I
understand it, the consensus was then to maintain the status quo. For one
thing, Mike posts our rolling scores reports on tapcis.com.

P

-----Original Message-----
From: Dodi Schultz

>>Paul, I'm just curious, and you seem to understand what the relationship
>>is.
>>
>>I don't understand why our game is still sent to the tapcis.com website.

[France International]

I can post on google groups just as easily, so as far as I'm concerned,
there is no need to maintain things on the tapcis forum also.

--Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Keating" <keating (AT) acm (DOT) org>
To: <dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2011 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: unintended exposure of email addresses?


> It was originally like that because the sysops intended The Parlor to move
> there along with the other sections of the old CS forum, but because it
> was presented as a surprise, a lot of us didn't know about it beforehand,
> and so alternative accommodation for the game had already been arranged at
> Yahoo. So now we had two venues for a single game, with some players
> preferring one over the other. And it wasn't simply a matter of preferring
> the colour scheme. The vBulletin software at tapcis.com had much better
> message threading than Yahoo. But Yahoo had a proper Files section, which
> was superior to vBulletin's ascii-only "sticky messages". And Yahoo had an
> email interface, while vBulletin didn't, and some players didn't want to
> log on to any website to play.
>
> A fair amount of feverish work was done to set up a cross-posting
> relationship, so that it didn't matter which site you preferred, you still
> saw all the messages from both. And it has worked remarkably well,
> considering, even surviving the migration to Google.
>
> The original reasons for preferring one venue over the other are now
> largely moot. Google's message threading is really rather good, assuming
> everyone uses a modern mail client. And the Google group no longer has a
> Files section: we had to move that stuff to Google Sites, which is where
> dixonary.net lives.
>
> One hardy perennial is a bug in vBulletin that assigns the same email
> message ID to two messages posted in quick succession. (It is a bug, not a
> feature, because the RFC says mail clients must not do that.) Google
> relies on the IDs being distinct. So when it gets two with the same ID it
> only displays one of them.
>
> The last time this happened was Round 2236 (last September), and, as I
> understand it, the consensus was then to maintain the status quo. For one
> thing, Mike posts our rolling scores reports on tapcis.com.
>
> P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dodi Schultz
>
>>>Paul, I'm just curious, and you seem to understand what the relationship
>>>is.
>>>
>>>I don't understand why our game is still sent to the tapcis.com website.
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4714 - Release Date: 12/31/11
>

[Stephen Dixon]

Guerri, you are exactly right about what I was thinking. While the game
involved a sizable group, the old Tapcis Forum was a much larger group.
Those that were not players would, likely, never think to search for
Dixonary.

Fun as the game has always been, some of the finest Tapcis moments happened
in the other parts of the forum. I think "Snow Tires, Two or Four," was the
longest running thread in the history of the forum and it was a thing of
wonder. But many a labyrinthine thread made it a most interesting place to
visit. Good people, smart people, unbelievably funny, warm & welcoming and
helpful.

Tapcis Forum was an interesting dynamic. Since the connection was nothing
more than the program, the forum collected people from all over the world
and all walks of life. Sure, there was a healthy supply of computer and
software geeks. We had people like Neil Rubenking, who was an editor for PC
Magazine. But there were relative "newbies," like me, who were just
plunking around with computers. The variety made for a very interesting
community. I have never come across anything else like it, in 20+ years of
poking around the web.

sd

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Guerri Stevens <guerri (AT) tapcis (DOT) com> wrote:

> If you are looking for the Dixonary game, it is true that a Google search
> will work. But if you were looking for the replacement for the old TAPCIS
> forum itself, intending to participate, that's a different story, and I
> think that's at least partly what Steve was saying.
>
> I am not sure how long tapcis.com will keep going. Like you, I found that
> aside from the Dixonary players, it is a dead place. Very little going on
> last time I looked, and some of the key people haven't been there in ages.
> I hope they are OK, and not ailing in some fashion.
>
> Guerri
>
>
> Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
>>
>> You can also Google "dixonary"; the fourth item is it (the first three
>> are very obviously NOT it).
>>
>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

I never participated a whole lot in the TAPCIS forum, until near the
end. At that point I was clinging to what was left of the old CompuServe
format. I never got familiar with the dragon and dungeon or the mauve
Saran Wrap or knew Fernando or how many snow tires I should be using.
But it was interesting, and I got involved in the game. Now, tapcis.com
is a place to sometimes resolve an issue with tapcis.com Email (now
hosted by Google).

I have fond memories, such as a wonderful birthday party for Joan
Friedman, with Howard Benner in attendance along with one of two men
that I think were brothers; I believe Davis was their last name, and I
think the one that attended was Monte and the other was Crane. There
were occasional comments that maybe there was only one because the two
had never been seen together.

Guerri

Stephen Dixon wrote:
> Guerri, you are exactly right about what I was thinking. While the game
> involved a sizable group, the old Tapcis Forum was a much larger group.
> Those that were not players would, likely, never think to search for
> Dixonary.
>
> Fun as the game has always been, some of the finest Tapcis moments
> happened in the other parts of the forum. I think "Snow Tires, Two or
> Four," was the longest running thread in the history of the forum and it
> was a thing of wonder. But many a labyrinthine thread made it a most
> interesting place to visit. Good people, smart people, unbelievably
> funny, warm & welcoming and helpful.
>
> Tapcis Forum was an interesting dynamic. Since the connection was
> nothing more than the program, the forum collected people from all over
> the world and all walks of life. Sure, there was a healthy supply of
> computer and software geeks. We had people like Neil Rubenking, who was
> an editor for PC Magazine. But there were relative "newbies," like me,
> who were just plunking around with computers. The variety made for a
> very interesting community. I have never come across anything else like
> it, in 20+ years of poking around the web.
>
> sd

[davidh]

I personally am not much concerned about any risk of "exposing" my email address, because I closed my vbulletin-registered email address some years ago and neglected to replace it with a current email address :o

From what I gather from the messages posted in this thread up until 12:00 AM EST New York Miami time January 1, 2012 (start of New Year's Day), the general consensus seems to exhibit more of a concern about the bother of continuing to post Dixonary messages on http://tapcis.com Dixonary forum as opposed to a concern about any possibly unintended exposure of personal email addresses. Since I am not a Dixonary player, I don't consider my opinion to carry any weight wrt such an issue / question.

However, first, I'd like to mention a couple historical items. FWIW, I think that SLB (Sysop Lindsey Bourne) and Sysop [?] Pete Hall separately opened tentative "groups" on Yahoo Groups back in 2005 as possible new home bases for TAPCIS forum, while Compuserve was preparing to close the TAPICS and OZWIN Compuserve forums down. I don't know if those two Yahoo groups still exist or not. I merely bring this up as more or less a matter of nostalgia, as opposed to something with any relevance to a practical issue.

ANOTHER ITEM:
I assume that some people (esp. e.g. Dixonary players?) still use tapcis.com as a (POP3) personal email domain? Perhaps that would be a reason to continue the communication / connection / linking etc. whatever between the Dixonary Google group and tapcis.com ?

ANOTHER, MORE PERIPHERAL, ITEM:
What is the URL of the Dixonary Google group and would it be kosher for the group to accept non-playing members who would only participate in OT (Off Topic threads / discussions [if that's the right word(s), in Google Groups?]) ?

[Paul Keating]

David,

The Google group is http://groups.google.com/group/dixonary. All kindred
spirits are welcome there. Some members of the group are _very_ occasional
players. There are sometimes lively off-topic conversations, and anyone who
finds them a distraction from the game is free to set up a filter on OT: in
the subject line. And we don't have to wait for a sysop to rename the
thread. Any participant can do that by changing the subject in their reply.

I don't think the email address issue is a sensible reason for pulling the
plug on the crossposting. Doing that now isn't going to make those archived
messages go away.

P

[Dodi Schultz]

davidh wrote:

> the general consensus seems to exhibit more of a concern about the
> bother of continuing to post Dixonary messages on http://tapcis.com
> Dixonary forum . . .

Most of us play by e-mail. Maybe all of us.

> would it be kosher for the group to accept non-playing members who
> would only participate in OT (Off Topic threads / discussions [if
> that's the right word(s), in Google Groups?]) ?

The group is solely for the game. Occasionally a player will have a
peripheral comment (hence the "OT" label) or a technical question that has
come up in relation to the player's participation in the game. I, for one,
certainly would not want this to turn into a general discussion group. I
would be against the admission of anyone who wanted only to chat. There are
plenty of other sites and groups for that on the 'net.

[Dodi Schultz]

On 1/1/2012 4:56 AM, Paul Keating wrote:

> Some members of the group are _very_ occasional players.

But they're not hanging around chatting and not participating in the game,
Paul.

I can think of only one member of the group who is ever absent for more
than a few rounds, usually due to heavy business commitments. And he IS a
PLAYER. If he's around, he's participating.

Please don't change this into a general-conversation site. This is the
equivalent of the old Parlor, not the entire old TAPCIS forum.

[davidh]

davidh wrote:

> the general consensus seems to exhibit more of a concern about the
> bother of continuing to post Dixonary messages on http://tapcis.com
> Dixonary forum . . .

Most of us play by e-mail. Maybe all of us.

> would it be kosher for the group to accept non-playing members who
> would only participate in OT (Off Topic threads / discussions [if
> that's the right word(s), in Google Groups?]) ?

The group is solely for the game. Occasionally a player will have a
peripheral comment (hence the "OT" label) or a technical question that has
come up in relation to the player's participation in the game. I, for one,
certainly would not want this to turn into a general discussion group. I
would be against the admission of anyone who wanted only to chat. There are
plenty of other sites and groups for that on the 'net.
Dodi,
Thanks for the clarification.

I was only thinking of possibly answering technical questions already posted in "OT" threads by existing players. I.e. if I had joined, I'd've not made any OP's (original posts / thread startings).

If someone did join the game group, but not to play, they would have to make a filter to accept only "OT" messages in their email or else read "OT" messages by web browser on the Google groups web site itself. Such an extra effort would probably be a discouraging factor for such hypothesized non-players. Unless they already were participating in other Google groups, which I'm not currently doing anymore (I started out in a couple various Yahoo groups and still follow a couple of them there).

So I'll probably just stick to just dropping by the TAPCIS Parlor once in a while and attempting to answer a tech question if I feel ambitious or bored :D

Thanks again for your comment.

[Guerri Stevens]

I have a tapcis.com Email address. Originally tapcis.com used GoDaddy to
"host" that Email. After some problems that I no longer remember or
knew, for that matter, they switched to using Google. Google has a
feature that allows groups to set up Email addresses for people, so your
Email address could be something (AT) xyzcorp (DOT) com, but underneath it is
really Google. So our addresses look like they are attached to the
tapcis.com site, but they really aren't.

Guerri

davidh wrote:
> ...
>
> I assume that some people (esp. e.g. Dixonary players?) still use
> tapcis.com as a (POP3) personal email domain? Perhaps that would be a
> reason to continue the communication / connection / linking etc.
> whatever between the Dixonary Google group and tapcis.com ?

[Jim Hart]

Dodi et al:

> Most of us play by e-mail. Maybe all of us.

No not all but now I wonder if I am the only one who generally logs in
to the Google groups site. I get the daily digest by email which is
useful as a reminder or for a quick scan, but 99% of my replies both
public or private (reply to author) are sent from the groups site.
Including this one.

No particular reason for this except that I don't want all those
messages in my inbox when most of them aren't to me but to the group.
Anyone else share my deviant behaviour?

Jim

[Paul Keating]

I don't want game messages in my inbox either, but it is easy to arrange
for them to go to a separate IMAP folder and bypass the inbox completely.
No need to give up the convenience of a desktop email client on that
account.

On 2 January 2012 13:48, Jim Hart <jfshart (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> Dodi et al:
>
> > Most of us play by e-mail. Maybe all of us.
>
> No not all but now I wonder if I am the only one who generally logs in to
> the Google groups site. ... I don't want all those
> messages in my inbox when most of them aren't to me but to the group.

[Dodi Schultz]

On 1/2/2012 7:48 AM, Jim Hart wrote:

> I wonder if I am the only one who generally logs in to the Google
> groups site. I get the daily digest by email which is useful as a
> reminder or for a quick scan, but 99% of my replies both public or
> private (reply to author) are sent from the groups site. Including
> this one.
>
> No particular reason for this except that I don't want all those
> messages in my inbox when most of them aren't to me but to the
> group.

Most e-mail clients have a "delete" button. Yours doesn't?

[Guerri Stevens]

I use Thunderbird for my Email, and have a filter that places the
Dixonary group messages in their own folder and not in the Inbox.

Guerri

Jim Hart wrote:
> Dodi et al:
>
>> Most of us play by e-mail. Maybe all of us.
>
> No not all but now I wonder if I am the only one who generally logs in
> to the Google groups site. I get the daily digest by email which is
> useful as a reminder or for a quick scan, but 99% of my replies both
> public or private (reply to author) are sent from the groups site.
> Including this one.
>
> No particular reason for this except that I don't want all those
> messages in my inbox when most of them aren't to me but to the group.
> Anyone else share my deviant behaviour?
>
> Jim
>
>

[Jim Hart]

> Most e-mail clients have a "delete" button. Yours doesn't?

Oh that button.

I'm quite comfortable with the groups site but out of curiosity will
experiment with a filter on Gmail as suggested by Paul and Guerri.

Jim