Re: [liberationtech] Can we solve global surveillance issue with technology at all?
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 18:20:33 PM +, adrelanos wrote:
> I am not sure we can fix the problem ("global surveillance system")
> with technology at all. Sure, personally I am a big fan of more
> usable and safer tools to communicate. They make us
> technology/privacy enthusiasts happy.
>
> Do ordinary citizen care about e-mail anymore anyway?
>
> I would assume, that most citizen communication nowadays is done by
> Facebook, SMS, WhatsApp. Roughly in that order. Who cares about e-mail,
only 92% of adult internet users, according to this study, which is
only 2 years old:
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Search-and-email.aspx
or, at least for business purposes 2 months ago, only 92% again:
http://www.kcom.com/connected-thinking/communications-news/email-still-most-popular-way-of-contacting-businesses-survey-reveals/801629974
> My hypothesis is: If there was a perfectly usable and perfectly safe
> alternative to Facebook, the majority would still continue to use
> Facebook
maybe, but that would matter only if those who do NOT want to stay on
Facebook had NO other way than keeping facebook.com open all the time
to know what their "facebook-only" friends or relatives are doing.
But it is possible to read Facebook notifications from *outside*
Facebook. So you can do all your email, blogging, whatever
etc... outside Facebook, and still know when Uncle Fred posts a
picture of your last family barbecue. In other words, there is no
need for the migration/liberation from Facebook to be a 100%
instantaneous switch-off.
Marco
--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of
list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] Asyncronous secure messaging (Email): Why reinvent the wheel?
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 09:37:27 AM +0100, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) wrote: > All initiatiatives are trying to setup some new technological > infrastructure, some new communication or encryption protocol. > > We MUST USE THE INTERNET STANDARDS, with modifications here and there, > improving them, in order to reach our goal in securing asyncronous > communications methods commonly referred as "Email". > > While i appreciate all of those cryptographer trying to do something > new, i must say that THIS IS THE WRONG WAY! > +100 :-) THANKS Fabio! Agree word by word with the whole message! -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
[liberationtech] OUT of: NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 11:49:46 AM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote: > A self-hosted mail provider will obviously *not* help much against > NSAs... Nick already pointed out that today's news is about direct copy of address books from centralized providers. Anyway, the ONLY reason I'm posting this email is this: > Can you *please* stop spamming lists with advertisements of your > project in every other thread? just for the record, I just checked the "every other thread" in the archives. From August 1st to ten minutes ago there have been 1404 messages to this list. Of all those 1404 messages, only EIGHT were from me (including my 2 first replies to this thread today). Don't worry, however. This is my LAST post on this list about this topic. Marco -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 11:49:46 AM +0200, Moritz Bartl wrote: > A self-hosted mail provider will obviously *not* help much against > NSAs mass collection of emails and email addresses. Don't sell it as > a "solution" in this context. why? No, seriously. Marco -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 09:50:12 AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-collects-millions-of-e-mail-address-books-globally/2013/10/14/8e58b5be-34f9-11e3-80c6-7e6dd8d22d8f_story.html?wpisrc=al_national > > NSA collects millions of e-mail address books globally I am very grateful to NSA. Really. I can't imagine what they could have done better than this: > During a single day last year, the NSA’s Special Source Operations > branch collected 444,743 e-mail address books from Yahoo, 105,068 > from Hotmail, 82,857 from Facebook, 33,697 from Gmail and 22,881 > from unspecified other providers, according to an internal NSA > PowerPoint presentation. Those figures, described as a typical daily > intake in the document, correspond to a rate of more than > 250 million a year. to prove that "quick & dirty" solutions like the percloud is needed NOW http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/personal-cloud-free-software (to know more about the percloud, and why it **is** needed in spite of FreedomBox etc... pls check the slideshow at http://per-cloud.com and my posts on the same topic at http://stop.zona-m.net/tag/percloud ) Marco -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] "why this way to personal clouds is still unique and needed"
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 21:08:08 PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote: > The first thing that came to mind reading your response to "What about those > other projects?" was Camlistore: > > http://camlistore.org/ Tony, Thanks for the pointer. Camlistore may be one of the components of the percloud, but it's far from being an alternative. percloud (see the slideshow in the home page) would be online storage + social networking + email and some other stuff. This, instead, is what the Camlistore overview says: > At least, it would be nice if we had a reliable backup of all our > content. Once we have all our content, it's then nice to search it, > view it, and directly serve it or share it out to others (public or > with select ACLs), regardless of the original host's policies. > Camlistore is a system to do all that. Marco -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
[liberationtech] "why this way to personal clouds is still unique and needed"
Greetings,
I just put online a new, updated explanation of why my proposal for a
"percloud" (PERsonal/PERmanent/PEeR2peer cloud) alternative to
centralized, anti-privacy social networks is, in my opinion, still
unique, and what is the real reason for it at
http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/10/the-real-problem-that-the-percloud-wants-to-solve-and-why-its-still-necessary/
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
1) I think mine is the ONLY short-term, feasible way to get the masses
of average Internet users OUT of walled gardens while still working
and "feeling" as a real and easy to use cloud service, while being
a p2p federation of individually owned and used clouds, completely
compatible with the rest of the current Internet
2) I will ONLY be able to work on it if I get enough funding, so
please contribute if you can, and in any case please spread the word
as much as possible!
all details are in the post.
Thanks!
Marco F
--
M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you
--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of
list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] Blogpost: "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 16:03:30 PM -0700, michael gurstein wrote: > With links > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/internet-freedom-and-post-snowden-g > lobal-internet-governance/ > > http://tinyurl.com/n3onw87 > > > "Internet Freedom" and Post-Snowden Global Internet Governance: Michael > Gurstein > ... > > Perhaps we could discuss Internet Freedom as Freedom from undue and > unaccountable surveillance. here's my proposal on how to make this freedom easily accessible by as many people as possible: http://www.slideshare.net/mfioretti/percloud-in-10slides It won't "anchor Internet Freedom in the rule of law", which is a separate, but necessary task, but it could be a feasible, short term migration path from the current centrally managed, centrally spiable networks. Marco -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
[liberationtech] percloud alternative to Gmail, Facebook, Dropbox etc... now ready for crowdfunding
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 13:47:07 PM +0200, Marco Fioretti wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> following some positive feedback and expressions of interest on my
> original proposal to replace digital walled gardens with properly
> packaged/integrated existing Free Software, here is a crowdfunding
> proposal on the same topic:
>
> http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/08/call-to-fund-research-on-an-easy-and-complete-alternative-to-gmail-facebook-etc/
and here is, finally, the project page, with fundraising link included:
http://per-cloud.com
Please help by spreading the word as much as possible.
NOTE to everybody who contacted me offlist about this when I first
mentioned the idea on this list: please come back to me with private
email if I don't do it myself in the next 2/3 days, we need to restart
our discussions.
Thanks
Marco Fioretti
--
M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you
--
Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of
list guidelines will get you moderated:
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe,
change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
compa...@stanford.edu.
[liberationtech] Funding research on better alternatives to Gmail, Facebook, Dropbox etc...
Greetings, following some positive feedback and expressions of interest on my original proposal to replace digital walled gardens with properly packaged/integrated existing Free Software, here is a crowdfunding proposal on the same topic: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/08/call-to-fund-research-on-an-easy-and-complete-alternative-to-gmail-facebook-etc/ any feedback and help to spread the word is very welcome, of course. Marco Fioretti -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
Re: [liberationtech] [guardian-dev] An email service that requires GPG/PGP?
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 17:07:26 PM -0400, Tim Prepscius wrote: > If you'd like to help me that would be cool.. > > My take on this is this: (these are are not all my ideas, can't take > full credit) > We want to get to a state where an e-mail server is easy to set up. exactly (part of) what I've been proposing since 2010/11 here: http://freesoftware.zona-m.net/tag/vpes/ http://stop.zona-m.net/tag/facebook/ I'll restart work in september on those proposals. Any feedback/comment is welcome! Marco -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google. Persistent violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] FBI/NSA want access to end-points: UVST could...
".. ensure they can BUT just with a warrant" Proposal by Rufo here: http://www.rufoguerreschi.com/2013/06/23/fbinsa-wants-to-have-access-to-end-points-uvst-could-ensure-that-happens-but-with-a-warrant/ Marco -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Stop promoting Skype
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 16:45:53 PM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 04:28:31PM +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: > > > BTW, since I'm getting offlist questions about this: in case you were > > thinking "what you want is the FreedomBox", NO, what I'm talking about > > is NOT the FreedomBox. What I'm suggesting is compatible with the > > FreedomBox, but it's something else, much more concrete. See the > > details in the comments to that same post. > > Your model of what FBX is trying to achieve is faulty. (what follows, with the exception of the last paragraph I added right now, is the answer I had just sent to Eugen when he pointed out the same thing off list) it's the model that Moglen was announcing around with Diaspora in 2010. > FBX is not about hardware, but about a number of FOSS (Debian) > packages see above. - it is a fact that this is the first time somebody points out this difference so clearly. Nobody, including members of the debian/software Freedombox ever pointed this out to me (that there was, that is, a software freedombox separated by Moglen's hw/project). Even if I've been posting for months on twitter, lists, etc.. that link every time it was on topic. - I'm almost sure I never came across that project myself earlier, in spite of: - me reading FOSS-related feeds daily for a living - having already presented my idea on several other mailing lists, forums, etc (INCLUDING the one on which you saw the link today...) Even the people who commented on my blog, they knew nothing of this "other" FreedomBox. Except, indirectly "Hans", who said it in such a vague form that back then I didn't realize at all what you just told me. Ah, well. Now: what I'm suggesting in my posts is equivalent to the "Leaving the Cloud" part of that project http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud with the important difference that in my own mind it's a bundle you could/should be able to install on any Gnu/Linux system. This is essential to make it popular. Even, say, independent hosting providers who run Centos or whatever, should really be able to offer the bundle as a managed service on their CURRENT systems, to "capture" as many users as possible. When they have it, they can always migrate later to a fully self-managed debian-based box. I have two deadlines this week, and another the next one. I see you've subscribed to the debian freedombox list. You're welcome to forward this email to that list, to gather feedback. If there is any, I'll subscribe and join the discussion later. Thanks, Marco ADDITION: > As to much more concrete, there's the 0.1 image out > ... > This 0.1 version is primarily a developer release, which means that > it focuses on architecture and infrastructure rather than finish > work. this, that is the timetable and priorities may be the main difference between my proposal and the debian freedombox. I am suggesting something that may be used outside debian, on any distribution, for the reasons explained above. Later, Marco -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Stop promoting Skype
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 10:18:25 AM -0400, Griffin Boyce wrote: > average users need to have basic services that are > (unfortunately) run by third parties. The proposal in that post of mine that I already cited would also solve this. It would be a way for non-geeks to get all their basic services offered/managed by third parties, if you can't don't want to do it yourself, but as ONE bundle (domain name included) that can be moved in any moment from hosting provider to hosting provider without loss of data/disruption of service, with two direct consequences: - better resilience - no way to get private data of X millions users by talking only to a handful of corporations, because those data would be scattered across many thousands of independently managed servers, worldwide. BTW, since I'm getting offlist questions about this: in case you were thinking "what you want is the FreedomBox", NO, what I'm talking about is NOT the FreedomBox. What I'm suggesting is compatible with the FreedomBox, but it's something else, much more concrete. See the details in the comments to that same post. Marco -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Stop promoting Skype
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 13:31:07 PM +0100, Yishay Mor wrote: > "If all this already exists, why isn t everybody doing it? Well, simply > because > there is no integration at all among all those objects. " > > No. we don't need no software bundles. we don't need no sleek installers. > How long does it take me to set up a gmail account? facebook account? flickr > account? 20 seconds. how much does it cost me to set up? how much does it cost > me to maintain? (ok, skype is an exception, I do need to install). > > See that's the standard you're competing with. Most users don't own server > space, physical or virtual, and would not in a million years be convinced to > buy any. Yishay, just out of curiosity: did you even bother to read what I actually wrote? Like, you know, the parts about service businesses? Or the fact that the proposal itself is about bundling existing software **exactly** to make it a "20 seconds set up"? -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Stop promoting Skype
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 09:16:32 AM +0200, Eduardo Robles Elvira wrote: > Stop promoting google hangout and hotmail, yahoo, gmail, outlook.com... =) and start promoting their replacement via user-friendly bundling of Free Software that already exist and may run in a portable way on any cheap VPS: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/01/the-alternatives-to-apple-facebook-c-already-exist-shall-we-package-them/ -- M. Fioretti http://mfioretti.com http://stop.zona-m.net Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how software is used *around* you -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Giving a talk on 3D printing and need some help
On Thu, May 16, 2013 07:06:39 AM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: > Any good suggestions on topics I should cover? 3D printing consumables for dead technology http://boingboing.net/2011/05/03/3d-printing-consumab.html 3D printing specifically for development, see my online bookmarks at: http://bookmarks.zona-m.net/tags/3d4d and also the entries in my general "3d printing" category in the same website: http://bookmarks.zona-m.net/tags/3d%20printing HTH, Marco F. http://mfioretti.com -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] (advice sought) Public safety and configuration of list
3 lines summary of what follows:
There is NO way that the list admin can prevent list members from
putting in danger other people who ask for help to the list, so stop
worrying too much about this and don't mess anymore with the headers.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 23:45:47 PM -0400, Michael Allan wrote:
> Experts on the list advise and inform on matters such as
> encrypting communications, protecting infrastructure from cyber
> attack, and protecting onself from personal danger.
in ~2 years I've been a subscriber here, I don't remember anything
that would be in the "personal vulnerable situation" category, that is
the starting point for all the concerns that follow. Anyway:
> the software adds a Reply-To header pointing to L, which is the
> address of the list itself. The message is then passed on to the
> subscribers. The meaning of the added Reply-To header is, "Q asks
> that you reply to her at L." [3]
> Note that this is false information; Q does not ask that.
Partly not correct (Q implicitly asked, or accepted that, the moment
he or she subscribed to a MAILING LIST, that as everybody knows are
places for public discussion. Especially when they have public
archives), partly irrelevant:
a) at least HALF of the fault in the scenario that you keep torturing
yourself with is not on "P". It is on "Subscriber Q dumb enough to
reply with helpful information" about a "PERSONAL VULNERABLE
SITUATION" [only] to the list, instead of being
mature/sensible/smart enough to:
1) answer to list ONLY in the vaguest possible terms ("I'll
get back to you on that") if at all
2) send any advice that may help but provocate reply with
sensitive data in a completely SEPARATE message, that the list
doesn't see at all
3) eventually, post to the list for future reference a summary
of general advice for cases like that, purged of personal data
if a "tired and distracted" person asks for advice to a not
stressed person, and the second person replies "OK, let's talk this
over just on the edge of a cliff", is the distracted person the
only one to blame if she falls off the cliff? In other words, the
only problem and fault in your scenario is not point 4 (P replies
with private info) but point 3 (Q replies with helpful info, but in
a totally braindead way, when he or she should really know better)
b) many people, like me, set their mail clients to recognize lists and
automatically send replies to list messages ONLY to the list.
Regardless of how much the admin played with the headers.
c) oh, and of course there still are the people who routinely and
blindly "reply to all" to whatever they get in their inbox
> POSSIBLE EXPLOIT THAT INCREASES THE DANGER
hmm...
> Might not this exploit be perceived as feasible?
yes. Just don't expect to solve it with mailing list management. If,
instead, the only goal is to give Stanford and the list admin wants a
legal basis to not be sued, that's OK.
> While Stanford University is evaluating these safety concerns and
> has yet to make a decision, it should return the configuration to
> its default setting. The default setting is known to be safe.
The default setting is known to provide very little of the specific
safety you want, for the reasons I explained. If replying to messages
from this list can put other people in danger, this is something that
ALL list members must individually commit to avoid, whenever they
answer.
Oh, and maybe "Q" people so DUMB to not check whether they are
replying on or off list when somebody's LIFE may be in danger
shouldn't subscribe in the first place, should they now?
So, personally I (re)vote for keeping reply-to to the list, but do as
you wish because I'll keep MY email client to "Reply-to List" anyway
(which proves my point), because it's infinitely more convenient than
having different behavior from all the other tens of mailing lists I
am subscribed to.
Marco F.
http://mfioretti.com
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Fwd: You are awesome, Treat yourself to a love one
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 11:28:34 AM +0200, Jens Christian Hillerup wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Andreas Bader > wrote: > > The liberationtech archives are publicly available. https:// > mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/ and it doesn't even matter, see my "how spammers work" reply. Marco PS: your (Jens) reply shows something over which many people get angry because they consider it an help to address-gathering spammers: putting the complete OP address in the attribution line "On Sun, Mar 31.." In practice, getting angry over this is completely pointless, since address harvesting happens as I explained in my other address -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] how spammers work, was: You are awesome, Treat yourself to a love one
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 09:21:13 AM +, Andreas Bader wrote: > How could that happen?? This Email Adress is existing since a week > or two and is only used for trusted contacts and Libtech/Drones > List! > From: mark ! > To: andreas.ba...@nachtpult.de How could that happen? In the same, totally unsurprising ways in which always happen to everybody who takes the same measures as you (no offense meant, really, just a technical explanation!). It happened in one of these two ways (there may be others, but these are by far the easiest and most likely): 1) one of your "trusted contacts" got infected by a spamming virus who sent spam to all the addresses in his list. And the list itself to other spambots. 2) (much more efficient) robots that automatically (**): - search online for mailing list archives and find pages like: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/ - download from such pages the "downloadable version" of each monthly archive, eg: https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-March.txt - extract and reformat from those files, in one fell swoop, all the strings that are trivial to recognize as email addresses, eg: "From andreas.bader at nachtpult.de Wed Mar 20 09:40:35 2013" (that's the first occurrence at line 30740, there are others) I can write a shell script that does all this in less time than it took me to write this explanation. So nothing unusual or surprising, really. And this story of yours (again, no offense at all meant!!!) is a perfect example of why and how many "address protection" measures like yours are completely useless. Point 2 above proves that this list didn't make all it could have done to hide your address, but Point 1 proves that it really doesn't matter. HTH, Marco http://mfioretti.com (**) your address is online, in equally recognizable form, also in all the "single message" pages, eg https://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/2013-March/007938.html, but why should a spammer download them all, when everything is in the text format montly archive? -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Vote results on "Reply to" Question
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 16:40:10 PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote: > If someone could look at one of my messages, in their own personal > email client archive, and say how many Reply-to headers there are > and what's in them, that would be useful, since I always set > Reply-to explicitly to a personal address. Karl, in this message from you there was one Reply-To header, set to: Karl Fogel , liberationtech about the general issue: most decent email clients can recognize messages from mailing lists and allow their user to ignore the reply-to header. Which is what I (and many other people) do, on this and any other mailing list I'm subscribed to. You may set it to mickeymo...@mouseton.com, and by default my replies to all messages sent to liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu would still go ONLY to liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Marco http://mfioretti.com -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] Packaging the alternatives to Dropbox &C, was: Safe app like Dropbox?
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 12:21:52 PM +0100, Julian Oliver wrote: > Server administration is a tremendously empowering skill to > have. A self-run server becomes its own commons; a campfire for > friends, family and those trusted. More importantly it is > regionalised culturally and infrastructurally - often right down to > the wire for communities in the same geographic area. > > Services like DropBox stress infrastructure, resulting in the > building of more singularly controlled 'main roads' on the Internet > while affirming market logics that favour service centralisation. The discussion about dropbox prompted me to translate a proposal that I published in Italian just last week, based on the same concepts mentioned by Julian above. The translation is here: http://stop.zona-m.net/2013/01/the-alternatives-to-apple-facebook-c-already-exist-shall-we-package-them/ and feedback is very welcome! Cheers! Marco Fioretti http://mfioretti.com -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
[liberationtech] FWD: Re: Liberationtech Mailing List Survey
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 08:52:44 AM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: > Just a reminder about the survey. To ensure getting as many > responses as possible, the survey will continue until Monday, August > 20, 2012. Since I got no feedback to what I wrote about the questions a couple weeks ago, here are my answers: > - Would you like to make the Liberationtech archives public or private? > - Public > - Private both are OK to me. But even if the result is "public" you MUST keep private the archives before, say, 2012/8/31, for all the reasons I explained 2 weeks ago. > - Should reply-to's be sent to the entire list or the individual sender? > - Entire List > - Individual Sender entire list > - Should we reduce or eliminate the list-email signature text? > - keep text signature as is > - Add "-- " prior to text signature to enable auto-hiding in most mailers > - Eliminate text signature completely add "-- " prior to text signature, that is make it standard, already. Marco F. -- http://mfioretti.com ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] Liberationtech Mailing List Survey
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 12:50:58 PM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: > Hi All, > > Based on your feedback, a short 3-question survey of the > Liberationtech community will be conducted to determine what changes > to implement... Should you have any questions, please let me know. Not really questions, but a few remarks and notes for less experienced email users yes, I do have them: > Would you like to make the Liberationtech archives public or private? I assume that, whatever the result of this question will be, they will only impact the _future_ archives, say from september 2012 onward, right? Archives of earlier months should remain "private" in the sense you explained, simply because you have been telling throughout all that period that they would be private. Of course yes, it's only a matter of principle, NOT a really effective measure. But making privacy settings changes retroactive is the kind of things that Facebook does, not a list with the goals that this one as. > Should reply-to's be sent to the entire list or the individual sender? Regardless of what one thinks is the right choice, setting reply-to to "individual sender" gives NO guarantee at all that replies will go the individual sender. All decent email clients include a "Reply-to-List" function that works exactly as its name says regardless of that setting, and many people (including me) use it all the time, almost inconsciously, when replying to anything they got from a mailing list. > Should we reduce or eliminate the list-email signature text? > - Keep text signature as is > - Add "-- " prior to text signature to enable auto-hiding in most >mailers > - Eliminate text signature completely the second option shouldn't be there at all. It's something that everybody, not just this mailing list, should do as standard netiquette anyway, regardless of what the signature is. The "-- " is called sigdash and has been around almost 30 years (1) for valid reasons, why should it be an argument of discussion? Please keep only the two other questions. If the survey says "eliminate signature", this also eliminates the sigdash. If the survey says "keep signature", why should it be in a non-standard format? (1) http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/sigs.html Marco -- http://mfioretti.com ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] archives public
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 01:01:27 AM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: > Yes, as we say in the list guidelines, our policy as an institution is > to keep the archives private. > > Unfortunately, because any list member can see the archives, we have > little or no recourse available to stop someone from copying and > making them public (unless we simply closed off the archives to all > members). Uh? This is not "someone copying the ARCHIVES". It is an automatic, real time mirroring of the list. The most likely explanation of the fact that there is such a mirror at mail-archive.com is that somebody has "added The Mail Archive as a member to your mailing list as described in the how-to-guide": http://www.mail-archive.com Also, according to their privacy guidelines, http://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#privacy "We comply with internet standard email headers which restrict or prohibit archiving" so adding those headers is something the administrators should do. Yes, this will NOT make it impossible to publish the archives online as a whole etc etc, but IMO you should do it anyway as a matter of principle. Marco http://mfioretti.com ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
Re: [liberationtech] archives public
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 01:01:27 AM -0700, Yosem Companys wrote: > Yes, as we say in the list guidelines, our policy as an institution is > to keep the archives private. > > Unfortunately, because any list member can see the archives, we have > little or no recourse available to stop someone from copying and > making them public (unless we simply closed off the archives to all > members). Uh? This is not "someone copying the ARCHIVES". It is an automatic, real time mirroring of the list. The most likely explanation of the fact that there is such a mirror at mail-archive.com is that somebody has "added The Mail Archive as a member to your mailing list as described in the how-to-guide": http://www.mail-archive.com Also, according to their privacy guidelines, http://www.mail-archive.com/faq.html#privacy "We comply with internet standard email headers which restrict or prohibit archiving" so adding those headers is something the administrators should do. Yes, this will NOT make it impossible to publish the archives online as a whole etc etc, but IMO you should do it anyway as a matter of principle. Marco http://mfioretti.com ___ liberationtech mailing list liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily digest?" You will need the user name and password you receive from the list moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator. Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
