On 15/02/16 17:36, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >> you as a group admin can do that, others cannot join >> without creating a account at google (which requires >> the acceptance of the google tos etc). > > that is annoying
i didn't know about list+subscr...@googlegroups.com (thanks Florian and Joseph) >> you also have censorship rights over others. > > umm, every mailing list has that. Google Groups is no different. it's better if admin right is at some discussion related organization. (e.g. in case anything happens to H.J.Lu) >> even if you add users to the list they cannot access >> the archive through standard http or https, > > you're conflating things here. of course access is through "standard > http or https" -- that's the transport protocol that everyone has to > implement according to the standard in order to work. Goole is not > different here. the contents cannot be accessed with an http or https client. (unless you know the magic urls below) >> they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their >> machine. > > complaining that the web interface executes JS is a bit luddite-ish. some of us tend to browse the web from terminal (== no js). >> (so wget does not work). > > every message has a link to the raw message you can use to fetch the > mail directly. > > perm link: > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ redirects me to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ > which has a link to the raw message: > https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ i didn't know about this raw url, it seems there is https://groups.google.com/forum/print/msg/x32-abi/IHmCJvigOEg/TyjZJYZ63DMJ too, so if i always change the urls i can browse the archive. (this is not discoverable without js as far as i can see) with the +subscribe@ and the raw msg options i'm no longer against google groups hosting public discussions (provided the project documents these somewhere), i still prefer more accessible alternatives though. > it's actually nicer than mailmain (i.e. sourceware) as it doesn't do all > the trivial content mangling (s/@/ at/g). it's not like e-mail scrapers > today can't reverse that easily. > >> and the url through which you visit a post is not a >> reliable permanent link so linking to posts is hard. > > every post has a "link" option to get a perm link. needing the location > in the URL bar be the perm link is a weak (dumb imo) requirement. > -mike >