[freenet-dev] Policy on removing people from mailing list archives?
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 26 May 2009 00:56:22 Matthew Toseland wrote: >> On one prior occasion (this year), we have authorised a mailing list archive >> site to remove messages posted by somebody. I have now had another mail >> asking for us to remove somebody's name from two archives which we don't run >> - which generally requires him asking them and getting authorisation from us >> - and from our own archives. >> >> If this is to be a regular occurrence, we need to formulate some policy, and >> IMHO the best way to do this is to discuss it here. Does anyone have an >> opinion on this? I doubt very much that we have any legal obligation to >> remove somebody's posts, especially as at least one of the other archive >> sites will only remove messages with our say so, but I guess we could get >> legal advice on it... Any opinions on the principle? IMHO rewriting history >> to make yourself look good to employers is dubious, but at the same time we >> clearly don't want to pick fights and unnecessarily annoy people. >> > > Suggested solution: Authorise removal from the external sites, and obscure > the name on our archives. > > ___ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > I concur. IMHO other sites should operate as they choose... if they're willing to remove people, then I think we should authorize it. I think it is important to retain all messages, but for archives the name is less important than the content. I would recommend obscuring it as [removed name #n] or similar, so that it's obvious whether it's the same removed name as some other message. Given Freenet's pro-anonymity stance, I think if someone has a desire to be made more anonymous, especially as regards potentially illegal software usage, that we should support them. Evan Daniel
[freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: > On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote: >> Matthew Toseland skrev: >>> On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: > As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in > FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. >> Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with >>> command >> line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is >>> already >> open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy > mode >> enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? >>> No, Firefox might very well end up opening a window in non-incognito mode. >> Surely such bug would be fixed before the beta turns into final? > > I have no idea, but it does exactly the above with profiles sometimes iirc. I know we had loads of trouble with the profile management back when we had the FireFox profile, but let's not sentence the incognito mode before it is even released. - Zero3
[freenet-dev] The installer is NOT signed
After reading the rants of a user complaining about javaws not working on #freenet, I decided to try it out: $wget https://checksums.freenetproject.org/cc/new_installer_offline.jar $jarsigner -verify new_installer_offline_1211.jar jar is unsigned. (signatures missing or not parsable) Needless to say that it's the reason why it doesn't work. MacOS installs (and windows pre-UAC) have presumably been broken since we have migrated to git/your build system And we learnt about it ... Yesterday. Great! We *NEED* to find a better way to get feedback from users. NextGen$ -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090525/9958925f/attachment.pgp>
[freenet-dev] The installer is NOT signed
After reading the rants of a user complaining about javaws not working on #freenet, I decided to try it out: $wget https://checksums.freenetproject.org/cc/new_installer_offline.jar $jarsigner -verify new_installer_offline_1211.jar jar is unsigned. (signatures missing or not parsable) Needless to say that it's the reason why it doesn't work. MacOS installs (and windows pre-UAC) have presumably been broken since we have migrated to git/your build system And we learnt about it ... Yesterday. Great! We *NEED* to find a better way to get feedback from users. NextGen$ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Separate browser or not
Matthew Toseland skrev: On Thursday 21 May 2009 11:54:32 Zero3 wrote: Matthew Toseland skrev: On Sunday 17 May 2009 11:43:26 Zero3 wrote: Colin Davis skrev: As implemented currently, Private browsing is all-or-nothing in FF3.5beta4 and Safari, but Google Chrome is per-window. Firefox has issues with coalescing windows, no? If I run firefox with command line options to use one profile, it may use another if a window is already open, there are things like that... Is opening a window with privacy mode enabled safe and reliable? I guess both ways should work fine for us? We simply launch the browser with the command line arguments, and let the browser handle the window/tab management? No, Firefox might very well end up opening a window in non-incognito mode. Surely such bug would be fixed before the beta turns into final? I have no idea, but it does exactly the above with profiles sometimes iirc. I know we had loads of trouble with the profile management back when we had the FireFox profile, but let's not sentence the incognito mode before it is even released. - Zero3 ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] The installer is NOT signed
On Monday, 25. May 2009 13:53:45 Florent Daignière wrote: And we learnt about it ... Yesterday. Great! We NEED to find a better way to get feedback from users. Couldn't a bug report function be integrated directly into the web-interface? Upper-right corner, a little bug icon with the text Report Bug. Should naturally be a freenet site or similar. - Arne --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - singing a part of the history of free software - http://infinite-hands.draketo.de signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
[freenet-dev] Policy on removing people from mailing list archives?
On one prior occasion (this year), we have authorised a mailing list archive site to remove messages posted by somebody. I have now had another mail asking for us to remove somebody's name from two archives which we don't run - which generally requires him asking them and getting authorisation from us - and from our own archives. If this is to be a regular occurrence, we need to formulate some policy, and IMHO the best way to do this is to discuss it here. Does anyone have an opinion on this? I doubt very much that we have any legal obligation to remove somebody's posts, especially as at least one of the other archive sites will only remove messages with our say so, but I guess we could get legal advice on it... Any opinions on the principle? IMHO rewriting history to make yourself look good to employers is dubious, but at the same time we clearly don't want to pick fights and unnecessarily annoy people. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Policy on removing people from mailing list archives?
Matthew Toseland wrote: On one prior occasion (this year), we have authorised a mailing list archive site to remove messages posted by somebody. I have now had another mail asking for us to remove somebody's name from two archives which we don't run - which generally requires him asking them and getting authorisation from us - and from our own archives. If this is to be a regular occurrence, we need to formulate some policy, and IMHO the best way to do this is to discuss it here. Does anyone have an opinion on this? I doubt very much that we have any legal obligation to remove somebody's posts, especially as at least one of the other archive sites will only remove messages with our say so, but I guess we could get legal advice on it... Any opinions on the principle? IMHO rewriting history to make yourself look good to employers is dubious, but at the same time we clearly don't want to pick fights and unnecessarily annoy people. but people repeatedly quote each other; i wouldn't've thought archive sites' software would be sufficiently advanced enough to remove all traces of them from their archive? IMO we should avoid removing entire messages, and encourage people to accept removal of their name other traceable stuff only. if they insist, it's probably kind to remove everything, but I'm still surprised that this is technically feasible. X ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Policy on removing people from mailing list archives?
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 00:56:22 Matthew Toseland wrote: On one prior occasion (this year), we have authorised a mailing list archive site to remove messages posted by somebody. I have now had another mail asking for us to remove somebody's name from two archives which we don't run - which generally requires him asking them and getting authorisation from us - and from our own archives. If this is to be a regular occurrence, we need to formulate some policy, and IMHO the best way to do this is to discuss it here. Does anyone have an opinion on this? I doubt very much that we have any legal obligation to remove somebody's posts, especially as at least one of the other archive sites will only remove messages with our say so, but I guess we could get legal advice on it... Any opinions on the principle? IMHO rewriting history to make yourself look good to employers is dubious, but at the same time we clearly don't want to pick fights and unnecessarily annoy people. Suggested solution: Authorise removal from the external sites, and obscure the name on our archives. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Policy on removing people from mailing list archives?
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote: On Tuesday 26 May 2009 00:56:22 Matthew Toseland wrote: On one prior occasion (this year), we have authorised a mailing list archive site to remove messages posted by somebody. I have now had another mail asking for us to remove somebody's name from two archives which we don't run - which generally requires him asking them and getting authorisation from us - and from our own archives. If this is to be a regular occurrence, we need to formulate some policy, and IMHO the best way to do this is to discuss it here. Does anyone have an opinion on this? I doubt very much that we have any legal obligation to remove somebody's posts, especially as at least one of the other archive sites will only remove messages with our say so, but I guess we could get legal advice on it... Any opinions on the principle? IMHO rewriting history to make yourself look good to employers is dubious, but at the same time we clearly don't want to pick fights and unnecessarily annoy people. Suggested solution: Authorise removal from the external sites, and obscure the name on our archives. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl I concur. IMHO other sites should operate as they choose... if they're willing to remove people, then I think we should authorize it. I think it is important to retain all messages, but for archives the name is less important than the content. I would recommend obscuring it as [removed name #n] or similar, so that it's obvious whether it's the same removed name as some other message. Given Freenet's pro-anonymity stance, I think if someone has a desire to be made more anonymous, especially as regards potentially illegal software usage, that we should support them. Evan Daniel ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
