> If I have a private party at my house, there may be 1000 guests. > This large number of guests makes it no less a private party... But I > need to give my home address to each of those 1000 people, and trust > them not to give it out to psychos, lunatics, or other random people > to whom I would not myself give it.
Well, if you sent these invites to people via a format that would send a copy of it on a billboard on some obscure road that some people might wander down or a copy of it on a board at the local library would you still consider it private? Because without X-no-archive that's basically what you do with any email you send to a list with a public archive. > > I disagree with X-no-archive on principle. > > You can disagree with it if you like, but that doesn't give you the > right to violate my privacy, nor my expressly stated request not to > post my e-mail address, which you have now done, in the attribution > line of the message to which this message is a reply. Did Ben sign an agreement not to give out your email? Did you ever tell anybody on the list to specifically not give out your email? Even if you did, I never saw the email saying that. If somebody asked me in passing what Derek Martin's email address was I wouldn't even think twice about giving them the one that I have for this list since that's the one I have for you. Plus this leaves out the whole thing about people using some mbox parsing software and having their own archive up on the net on their webpage that ignores X-no-archive. You can't even start to control who does what with the email addresses on the list, or even stop a spammer from joining the list itself and getting email addresses that way (as some have pointed out). I'm not saying that we should give up trying to stop them, just pointing out the ways around trying to stop it from happening. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
