> It should be possible to participate in a public forum without being
> forced to reveal your private information. We do not require people
> who show up at LUG meetings to give out their home addresses; nor
> should we do similar here. This mailing list, like many, avails the
> subscriber of tw
Plenty of excellent material flies by on the GNHLUG
list that is not immediately applicable, but I've
always assumed that I'd be able to retrieve any given
msg from the archives if necessary. I'd therefore be
disappointed to learn that GNHLUG postings are not
being properly archived. It's never
On Sat, 2003-08-02 at 23:52, Derek Martin wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > I suspect the problem Dan Coutu <[EMAIL PROTECTED] deleted]> is seeing arises
>
> I must publicly and strenuously object to the practice of including
> posters' e-mail addresses in the body
On Sunday, Aug 3rd 2003 at 21:23 -0400, quoth Travis Roy:
=>Okay. While I agree with everything Derek is saying I have a few questions.
=>Whould it really be that hard to remove people's email addresses from the
=>archive? Does the archive really have to be all that public? Perhaps adding
=>a logi
On Sunday, Aug 3rd 2003 at 08:45 -0400, quoth Steven W. Orr:
=>If I could, I'd like to make a humble suggestion:
=>
=>A while ago I switched from Majordomo to Majordomo2. The two systems are
=>not even vaguely related. MJ2 is a total rewrite and includes as part of
=>its functionality a web inte
>A while ago I switched from Majordomo to Majordomo2. The two systems are
>not even vaguely related. MJ2 is a total rewrite and includes as part of
>its functionality a web interface as well as archiving also with a web
>interface. To leave it at that would be to enormously understate its
>functio
On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 09:23 PM, Travis Roy wrote:
The main thing I'm trying to say is that we should somehow block email
addresses from showing up on the archive website rather then have
people
stop it from archiving their messages. The archive becomes pointless
if a
large number of peo
On Sunday, Aug 3rd 2003 at 10:44 -0400, quoth Morbus Iff:
=>
=>>A while ago I switched from Majordomo to Majordomo2. The two systems are
=>>not even vaguely related. MJ2 is a total rewrite and includes as part of
=>>its functionality a web interface as well as archiving also with a web
=>>interfac
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, at 11:52pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It should be possible to participate in a public forum without being
> forced to reveal your private information.
I don't consider an email address private information in this context,
given that, when you post to a public list, you are
> By making the archive only open to subscribers, we completely eliminate
> any address harvesting.
I think that a better solution would be to find a way to strip the e-mail
addresses. I don't know how many times I have found solutions by running
a google search and coming up with a solution in
>I think that a better solution would be to find a way to strip the e-mail
>addresses. I don't know how many times I have found solutions by running
>a google search and coming up with a solution in a mailing list archive.
>This is esp. true with linux related materials.
Just be careful that
> 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
On Sunday, Aug 3rd 2003 at 19:04 -0400, quoth Derek Doucette:
=>> By making the archive only open to subscribers, we completely eliminate
=>> any address harvesting.
=>
=>I think that a better solution would be to find a way to strip the e-mail
=>addresses. I don't know how many times I have fou
Steven W. Orr said:
> On Sunday, Aug 3rd 2003 at 19:04 -0400, quoth Derek Doucette:
>
> =>> By making the archive only open to subscribers, we completely
> eliminate =>> any address harvesting.
> =>
> =>I think that a better solution would be to find a way to strip the
> e-mail =>addresses. I don
Interestingly enough, it was decided (back when we switched to mailman)
to have the From/Reply-to address of this discussion list be that of the
sender. The -org list is configured such that the From/Reply-to address
is that of the list.
The -org list does not show addresses in the archives.
The
I vote that we:
1: Not require people to strip email addresses from the headers and
body of posts. This is too much work. Humans shouldn't have to
do this.
2: Keep the archive going, keep it world-accessible
3: Obfuscate email addresses in the web-archives. Many, many lists
th
>
> I vote that we:
>
> 1: Not require people to strip email addresses from the headers and
> body of posts. This is too much work. Humans shouldn't have to
> do this.
>
> 2: Keep the archive going, keep it world-accessible
>
> 3: Obfuscate email addresses in the web-archives. Man
17 matches
Mail list logo
