To avoid this problem, I chose to use an anonymous address. Others should do the same.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org > wrote: > On Tuesday 26 May 2009 01:00:57 Ximin Luo wrote: > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > On one prior occasion (this year), we have authorised a mailing list > archive > > > site to remove messages posted by somebody. I have now had another mail > > > asking for us to remove somebody's name from two archives which we > don't run > > > - which generally requires him asking them and getting authorisation > from us > > > - and from our own archives. > > > > > > If this is to be a regular occurrence, we need to formulate some > policy, and > > > IMHO the best way to do this is to discuss it here. Does anyone have an > > > opinion on this? I doubt very much that we have any legal obligation to > > > remove somebody's posts, especially as at least one of the other > archive > > > sites will only remove messages with our say so, but I guess we could > get > > > legal advice on it... Any opinions on the principle? IMHO rewriting > history > > > to make yourself look good to employers is dubious, but at the same > time we > > > clearly don't want to pick fights and unnecessarily annoy people. > > > > but people repeatedly quote each other; i wouldn't've thought archive > sites' > > software would be sufficiently advanced enough to remove all traces of > them > > from their archive? > > > > IMO we should avoid removing entire messages, and encourage people to > accept > > removal of their name & other traceable stuff only. if they insist, it's > > probably kind to remove everything, but I'm still surprised that this is > > technically feasible. > > Agreed. On our own archives, we can change the person's name to Anonymous > Coward 1234. But on other people's archives, usually they will only accept > deletion requests, authorised by the owner of the mailing list. > > Two further complications: > - We are losing emu. This may mean losing our mailing list archives. In > which case, deletion is the only option, because we rely on third party > archives. Which really sucks. However, hopefully we will still be able to > host basic mailing list archives. Ian is however pushing for us to outsource > absolutely everything... > - Removing from lurker (archives.freenetproject.org) is nontrivial, > involving a 6 hour index rebuild during which time it will probably be > offline. > > It is tempting to charge a fee - we could set it quite high and still be > cheaper than suing us for making somebody less attractive to employers. But > then if we missed a single message we could surely be sued for missing it. > Although a disclaimer promising to put right any mistakes once notified and > disclaiming all further liabilities might avoid that problem. > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090526/654bb646/attachment.html>
