Mark Rauterkus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Tom Neff wrote:
> >Carl Page's suggestion, that concerned listowners start using X-No-Archive
> >all over the place, has one enormous problem, which is that LEGITIMATE
> >archives for your list may exist, with access rights and format of your
choosing;
> >this "industry standard" cuts both ways.
>
> Of course. And, list participants who know what the heck they are doing
> can tag their outgoing mail header too. I'd like to empower the list
> participants with the right to archive or not their own contributions.
That is an individual choice you make as a listowner. Other listowners may
choose NOT to "empower list participants" to choose whether some or all messages
are archived offsite, and their choices as listowners should not be overruled or
circumvented.
> I've got some of my lists archived at FindMail -- while others are not.
>
> We requested that a list description with "PRIVATE" or a list description
> with the keystrokes of [-] (that's bracket open, hyphen, bracket closed)
> be signals for the archivers to NOT archive that specific list. The
> FindMail administrator followed that subtle request from me in the past.
> I think it is still active there.
Again, the onus should NOT be on individual listowners to know in advance what
intricate hoops to jump through in their list configurations in order to prevent
some random external sites from deciding to archive them. People should be able
to start lists where they want, on the terms they want, and expect to be ASKED
if Findmail, or PenguinMail, or BoliviaMail, or whatever, wants to start
archiving. Anyone can install Majordomo without knowing "Findmail" from Fanny
Farmer, nor should they have to.
> >Personally, I would watch (using Procmail) for subscribes from
> >findmail.com, and kick them off immediately, and then send that
"listsaver-of-"
> >address just ONE message for its "archive" saying: THIS IS NOT THE REAL
ARCHIVE.
> >This was created without permission. Tell Findmail to stop operating this
way."
> >A wave of those ought to generate enough user feedback to get them to think
about
> >the issue. :)
>
> I disagree fully. FindMail is a valid archive of the lists that I run.
Then do your listmasterly duty and register the Findmail archive yourself. I am
talking about UNSOLICITED archiving without the listowner's knowledge or
consent. It has nothing to do with whether the archive is "valid," whatever
that means. As a listowner I may want to restrict who has access to the
archive. I may have a paying list and wish to charge for access. I may have a
superior archiver with valuable features and not welcome low-rent "competition"
for the archiving role. I may have a list that encourages unselfconscious
spontaneity and casual chatter, one where encouraging anal retentives to say
"But on July 23, 1994, you wrote..." would spoil the fun. There are a lot of
reasons. It should be my choice.
I agree that Findmail is a valuable service, at least right now, and that all
listowners should be told about it -- UP FRONT -- so they can decide for
themselves whether they want to avail themselves of its services. They should
not find out after the fact from a funny member name or a flurry of Altavista
matches.
> I'm not going out an telling you all how to run your lists, mind you.
> And, if you have reason for FindMail not subscribing to your lists --
> then fine. I do not want FindMail at all my lists and we've worked this
> out.
Working it out privately is one thing, but establishing a policy would go a lot
farther.
