Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

cheshirekat sez: > [snip personal baggage that has little to nothing to do with anything I wrote or could possibly have meant by my short response] I've taken my response to private email, as anyone should do when they have a personal issue with someone. Talk about rude and mistaking what someon

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

On Mon, Oct 10, 20057:44 PM, the following words from Michael Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED], emerged from a plethora of SPAM ... >One more time: The archive that is proposed REMOVES email addresses. You >would receive no spam from it. Well, there is a BIG difference between an archive that has been PR

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Michael Lewis sez: >Of course, if they >really are out to get you, then it is paranoia... :) Oops. Meant "is not paranoia". Left out a word there... -- Michael Lewis Off Balance Productions [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.offbalance.com

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

cheshirekat sez: >I think there are others who have the same opinion about email addresses >and public archives of mailing lists. I also think that those who don't >care are the ones who haven't had anything negative arise because of >public mailings lists - or aren't aware of the potential. > I

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

On Mon, Oct 10, 20054:41 PM, the following words from A-NO-NE Music [EMAIL PROTECTED], emerged from a plethora of SPAM ... > >It has been interesting I found myself minority on this subject. Most >of the user groups, mainly audio engineers in my case, don't want to >have archive public because e

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

It has been interesting I found myself minority on this subject. Most of the user groups, mainly audio engineers in my case, don't want to have archive public because everyone is afraid of getting quoted outside of the forum, and you have no control over it. You could make mistake by posting wr

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

A-NO-NE Music ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2005-10-07 23:58 said: >Sean McBride / 2005/10/06 / 06:52 PM wrote: > >>I'm afraid I can't agree... the list is public, isn't it? And public >>means, well, public. :) > >What is the definition of public here? If the list do not allow non >registered member t

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Douglas Carnall said: >>I think it is a >>disservice to Powermail owners NOT to archive this. > >Hear hear! > >I'd quite like to delete my own personal archive (merely a filter in a >folder named 'powermail'), plus we'd get the goodness of Google. While I don't object to an emailobscured online

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

At Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:36:32 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I think it is a >disservice to Powermail owners NOT to archive this. Hear hear! I'd quite like to delete my own personal archive (merely a filter in a folder named 'powermail'), plus we'd get the goodness of Google. D. -- Dougie Carn

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

A-NO-NE Music sez: >If I knew the list >archive is open to public, and whatever I post here can be access from >anyone outside of this list members then I have a problem. I've stayed out of this for the longest while, but this "problem" makes me need to ask a question: What do you have against p

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Sean McBride / 2005/10/06 / 06:52 PM wrote: >I'm afraid I can't agree... the list is public, isn't it? And public >means, well, public. :) What is the definition of public here? If the list do not allow non registered member to post, how come it is public? If I knew the list archive is open t

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

C. A. Niemiec said: >>>Not e-mail addresses (those were certain to be removed), >> >>No, email addresses in body was not certain to be removed and are not in >>the current online archive. >I was assuming Dave Nathanson's archive suggestion which would: Aha, I didn't realize that. PM 5.2.1 | OS X

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

>>Not e-mail addresses (those were certain to be removed), > >No, email addresses in body was not certain to be removed and are not in >the current online archive. I was assuming Dave Nathanson's archive suggestion which would: >The mail archiver I'm talking about obscures all email addresses, e

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

C. A. Niemiec said: >Not e-mail addresses (those were certain to be removed), No, email addresses in body was not certain to be removed and are not in the current online archive. PM 5.2.1 | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400 | 768MB RAM | 30GB HD

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Mikael Byström ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2005-10-07 21:42 said: >>I'm afraid I can't agree... the list is public, isn't it? And public >>means, well, public. :) > >Since when does "public" mean "let's leave out everyones email addresses >out for the spambots"? Wooly thinking. Sorry I wasn't cleare

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

>>I'm afraid I can't agree... the list is public, isn't it? And public >>means, well, public. :) > >Since when does "public" mean "let's leave out everyones email addresses >out for the spambots"? Wooly thinking. Not e-mail addresses (those were certain to be removed), but that one's name appear

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Sean McBride said: >I'm afraid I can't agree... the list is public, isn't it? And public >means, well, public. :) Since when does "public" mean "let's leave out everyones email addresses out for the spambots"? Wooly thinking. PM 5.2.1 | OS X 10.3.9 | Powerbook G4/400 | 768MB RAM | 30GB HD

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

A-NO-NE Music ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on 2005-10-05 10:35 said: >>* Is there any reason NOT to publicly archive this discussion list? > >I do not wish my name is googled through this list, not to mention you >can google my email address through this list (and one other) right now. > >I don't know ab

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

The mail archiver I'm talking about obscures all email addresses, even those in the message body. Here is what it is & what it looks like: As you can see it inserts an "[email protected]" in place of any word that has an at

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Either making the archive private, so anyone who wants to use it, has to log in or every mail-adress gets filtered by the archive software like with . All the best Matthias --- Admilon Consulting GmbH http://www.admilon.com iChat/AI

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Rick Lecoat / 2005/10/05 / 11:13 AM wrote: >Don't know what the solution is, other than appealing top the people who >maintain the archive (CTM). I admin one of the digital audio equipment user group, and we make our archive only available to the members. -- - Hiro [PROTECTED] <[PROTECTED]

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Yeah, the archive list is a problem because, as has previously been mentioned, if munges some email addresses and not others. The address of the poster is hidden, but any email addresses in the body of the message show up as normal, and of course this occurs all the time because people use email a

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Dave Nathanson / 2005/10/04 / 12:47 PM wrote: >* Is there any reason NOT to publicly archive this discussion list? I do not wish my name is googled through this list, not to mention you can google my email address through this list (and one other) right now. I don't know about others, but her

Re(2): FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Which service is this? We're looking for one for some other lists. >There is a nifty WWW email-list archiving service that is free & robust. >It's been in service since 1998, and is still in full swing. It has some >advantages of being sortable by thread (!) or by date. > >Anybody here could add

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

Dave Nathanson on 10/4/05 said >Question: >* Is there any reason NOT to publicly archive this discussion list? As long as the e-mail addresses are hidden. Perhaps certain announcements from CTM dev should be suppressed where they offer specials to members of this list. >* Does anybody in parti

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

There is a nifty WWW email-list archiving service that is free & robust. It's been in service since 1998, and is still in full swing. It has some advantages of being sortable by thread (!) or by date. Anybody here could add our PowerMail-Discuss list to it, but I'm happy to handle it. It's no tr

Re: FINALLY: PM ARCHIVES!

On 9/28/05, Ben declared: >>http://pmdiscuss.ctmdev.com/ > >Wow, that's news to me... people have asked on this list, repeatedly >over the past several years, about whether there is an archive, and the >answer has always been "no". When was this implemented? I don't know when it was implemented