I believe, as has been pointed out before, that to Mailman the
words private list mean something different from how you mean it.
As the list page says, This is a private list, which means that
the list of members is not available to non-members. That's *all*
it means to Mailman. It does not
At 7/12/2005 03:49 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
Apologies for my earlier message, I misunderstood what this was
showing
No problem.
Still, I maintain that if you don't want your email address to be
widely-publicised, using a mailing list to which anyone can subscribe
is a silly thing to do
Why
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:16 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
... apart from the fact that when you join it says ...
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is
not available to non-members.
... which I would have thought covered _not_ having my email
address readily available on
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
Agreed.
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in these
postings, then it should not. Have you all gone nuts?
Andrew Stiller
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in these
postings, then it should not. Have you all gone nuts?
Andrew Stiller
Kallisti Music Press
I second Andrew's comment. Of all the copyright issues to be worried
about, this has to rank way down the bottom. What next, objecting to
people remembering what you say in the pub?!
It's the distribution of email addresses that I object to.
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
In a message dated 12/07/2005 17:51:00 GMT Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What next, objecting to
people remembering what you say in the pub?!
I think I can safely say that I have never remembered anything said to me in
a pub nor have I heard of anyone ever remembering anything
At 12:37 PM 7/12/05 -0400, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in these
postings, then it should not. Have you all gone
I agree that this is silly. When you send an email to this list you are
going to sometimes have an email forwarded to an offlist member. You are
going to be quoted with attribution in other emails, perhaps to other lists.
It's part of the expected actions to be taken with an email, and these are
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
It's the distribution of email addresses that I object to.
There is no distribution of email addresses on this archive. They are
stripped out. Check it out yourself.
http://www.opensubscriber.com/messages/finale@shsu.edu/416.html
At 7/12/2005 01:22 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
The point of a private list is precisely that -- we speak to each other
with a certain level of understanding and respect and especially mutual
trust.
You are totally wrong.
There is no such thing as a private list than anyone in the general
At 01:37 PM 7/12/05 -0400, Neal Schermerhorn wrote:
I agree that this is silly. When you send an email to this list you are
going to sometimes have an email forwarded to an offlist member. You are
going to be quoted with attribution in other emails, perhaps to other lists.
It's part of the
I agree that this is silly. When you send an email to this list you
are going to sometimes have an email forwarded to an offlist member.
You are going to be quoted with attribution in other emails, perhaps
to other lists. It's part of the expected actions to be taken with an
email, and these
On 12-Jul-05, at 11:00 AM, Owain Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in these
Simon Troup schrieb:
... apart from the fact that when you join it says ...
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is not
available to non-members.
... which I would have thought covered _not_ having my email address
readily available on another site.
Which they
Which they aren't, no matter how many times you repeat this.
Actually, I take this back. I just checked, and it is easy to find out
any email address, although they are displayed only as a graphic.
Now that does worry me a little, especially as the amount of SPAM on my
mailing list address has
On 12 Jul 2005, at 12:47 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in these
postings, then it should
Simon Troup schrieb:
... apart from the fact that when you join it says ...
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is
not available to non-members.
... which I would have thought covered _not_ having my email
address readily available on another site.
Simon Troup wrote:
Simon Troup schrieb:
... apart from the fact that when you join it says ...
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is
not available to non-members.
... which I would have thought covered _not_ having my email
address readily available on another
Simon Troup wrote:
Simon Troup schrieb:
... apart from the fact that when you join it says ...
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is
not available to non-members.
... which I would have thought covered _not_ having my email
address readily available on another
On 12/07/05, Simon Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a private list, which means that the list of members is
not available to non-members.
... which I would have thought covered _not_ having my email
address readily available on another site.
Which they aren't, no matter how many
At 03:04 PM 7/12/2005, Simon Troup wrote:
Oh hello, what's this then?
http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/email/1476456.html
It's exactly what it says: it's an image of your email address, which
is not harvestable by bots in that form. This is not what most of us
would call readily
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Thirded. This is like objecting to internet search engines.
Searchable online list archives benefit everyone.
If you're *that* concerned about copyright, then don't post here.
I have no problem with my messages appearing there.
Apologies for my earlier message, I misunderstood what this was
showing
No problem.
Still, I maintain that if you don't want your email address to be
widely-publicised, using a mailing list to which anyone can subscribe
is a silly thing to do
Why does it have to be that way? Can't I join a
Simon Troup wrote:
Actually, I take this back. I just checked, and it is easy to find out
any email address, although they are displayed only as a graphic.
Thanks Johannes, I thought you must have missed that. I'm not sure where we're
up to with SpmBot OCR but that particular graphic is
On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
I agree that this is silly. When you send an email to this list you
are going to sometimes have an email forwarded to an offlist member.
You are going to be quoted with attribution in other emails, perhaps
to other lists. It's part of the
Am I the only one who might actually try using Opensubcriber to search
the archives?
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
On 12 Jul 2005 at 12:37, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in these
postings, then it should not. Have you all gone
On 12 Jul 2005, at 4:05 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Am I the only one who might actually try using Opensubcriber to search
the archives?
No. It's *insanely frustrating* that since de-linking from Google,
there has been no way to search the archives. I have already started
using
It's an *image file*, which is not able to be harvested by web
spiders. It's there for actual humans who click over to that page, but
it is in NO WAY readily available.
I know what you mean but I think you're overestimating the security of that
image. OCR exists, and spammers are conttinually
On 12 Jul 2005 at 14:04, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
It's the distribution of email addresses that I object to.
There is no distribution of email addresses on this archive. They are
stripped out. Check it out yourself.
On 12 Jul 2005, at 4:18 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
If people want searchable archives and RSS then let's find a solution
that doesn't include this guy (opensubscriber.com) who clearly just
wants his GoogleAds revenue at the expense of my privacy.
I'm not opposed to that, but if past experience
On 12 Jul 2005 at 15:03, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 12:47 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me.
Darcy James Argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 4:05 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Am I the only one who might actually try using Opensubcriber to
search the archives?
No. It's *insanely frustrating* that since de-linking from Google,
there has been no way to search the archives.
On 12 Jul 2005, at 4:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
No, it's not like that at all -- it's extremely different. Google
archives publicly available content.
David, Google used to archive this list. The *only* objection that I
remember being raised about that was that the email address were not
On 12 Jul 2005 at 15:29, Aaron Sherber wrote:
At 01:01 PM 7/12/2005, Simon Troup wrote:
It's the distribution of email addresses that I object to.
See, nobody has yet responded to that part of my posts. Anyone in the
world can subscribe to this list and then get a list of the
subscribers
On 12 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Owain Sutton wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Thirded. This is like objecting to internet search engines.
Searchable online list archives benefit everyone.
If you're *that* concerned about copyright, then don't post here.
I
On 12 Jul 2005 at 20:55, Owain Sutton wrote:
Simon Troup wrote:
Actually, I take this back. I just checked, and it is easy to find
out any email address, although they are displayed only as a
graphic.
Thanks Johannes, I thought you must have missed that. I'm not sure
where we're up to
On 12 Jul 2005 at 16:01, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Simon Troup wrote:
I agree that this is silly. When you send an email to this list you
are going to sometimes have an email forwarded to an offlist
member. You are going to be quoted with attribution in other
On 12 Jul 2005 at 16:14, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 4:05 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Am I the only one who might actually try using Opensubcriber to
search the archives?
No. It's *insanely frustrating* that since de-linking from Google,
there has been no way to search the
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should the SHSU Finale archives honor the X-NoArchive header?
I want my posts archived there, but not in any public forums like
Opensubscriber.com, but there is no way to have one or the other.
You see, here's where you lose me in your copyright
On 12 Jul 2005 at 12:30, Brad Beyenhof wrote:
On 12/07/05, Simon Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a private list, which means that the list of members
is
not available to non-members. ... which I would have
thought covered _not_ having my email address readily available
on
At 04:54 PM 7/12/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That was *not* the case until this third party (completely unrelated
to anyone involved with the list) became involved.
And, if anyone cares, I just heard from a Sibelius person (with company
ties) who's been reading the list at mail-archive.com.
On 12 Jul 2005 at 16:44, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 4:37 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
No, it's not like that at all -- it's extremely different. Google
archives publicly available content.
David, Google used to archive this list. . . .
At a point where the archives were
O, this is even more fun:
http://www.archivum.info/finale@shsu.edu/
The email addresses are obfuscated on the page display, but are complete
right there in the source code!
Dennis
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
On 12 Jul 2005 at 17:01, Stephen Peters wrote:
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Should the SHSU Finale archives honor the X-NoArchive header?
I want my posts archived there, but not in any public forums like
Opensubscriber.com, but there is no way to have one or the other.
David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact that Yahoo and Geektools and a number of other sites are
obfuscating their graphics suggests to me that bots that OCR graphics
are pretty common.
Actually, they're not. Partly because there's a *lot* of research
involved in getting it to
On 12 Jul 2005 at 17:09, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 04:54 PM 7/12/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That was *not* the case until this third party (completely unrelated
to anyone involved with the list) became involved.
And, if anyone cares, I just heard from a Sibelius person (with
On 12 Jul 2005 at 17:17, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
O, this is even more fun:
http://www.archivum.info/finale@shsu.edu/
The email addresses are obfuscated on the page display, but are
complete right there in the source code!
But it's no longer being archived, correct?
--
David W.
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 04:54 PM 7/12/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That was *not* the case until this third party (completely unrelated
to anyone involved with the list) became involved.
And, if anyone cares, I just heard from a Sibelius person (with company
ties) who's been
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005 at 20:40, Owain Sutton wrote:
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Darcy James Argue schrieb:
Thirded. This is like objecting to internet search engines.
Searchable online list archives benefit everyone.
If you're *that* concerned about copyright, then don't
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Consider the issues raised here (all on one line):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006691.ph
p
URL Not Found? I got no problem w. that! ;->
Google Andrew Stiller. Is it really your intent that your postings
on
On 12 Jul 2005, at 5:09 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 04:54 PM 7/12/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That was *not* the case until this third party (completely unrelated
to anyone involved with the list) became involved.
And, if anyone cares, I just heard from a Sibelius person (with
Reducing it to if you don't like it don't post is a perfect example
of acquiescing to the Tragedy of the Commons, as though there's
nothing can be done about exploitation of a resource that kills the
usefulness of that resource.
--
David W. Fenton
Funny, I'd have said that the
Owain,
either you haven't read my post properly, or you are mixing apples with
oranges. You replied to my worries about my email address being
accessible on a third party server, and now you are talking about
copyright. The two are completely different affairs.
Johannes
Owain Sutton
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Owain,
either you haven't read my post properly, or you are mixing apples with
oranges. You replied to my worries about my email address being
accessible on a third party server, and now you are talking about
copyright. The two are completely different affairs.
On 12 Jul 2005 at 17:59, Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:06 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Consider the issues raised here (all on one line):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006691.
ph p
URL Not Found? I got no problem w. that! ;-
Did you
On 12 Jul 2005 at 18:06, Andrew Stiller wrote:
Reducing it to if you don't like it don't post is a perfect
example of acquiescing to the Tragedy of the Commons, as though
there's nothing can be done about exploitation of a resource that
kills the usefulness of that resource.
--
On 12 Jul 2005 at 18:06, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 5:09 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
At 04:54 PM 7/12/05 -0400, David W. Fenton wrote:
That was *not* the case until this third party (completely
unrelated to anyone involved with the list) became involved.
And, if
If you don't like the inherent potential for misuse present in a
mailing list such as this, don't use it, and unsubscribe. If you
have a particular copyright complaint about particular things that
you have posted, then pursue it.
You know, every day I get pornographic spam, racist spam,
On 13 Jul 2005 at 0:05, Simon Troup wrote:
You would have me stop collecting email because it's inevitable? I do
what I can with filters, creative use of catchall email and blocking
emails at the server.
Why do you have a catchall? If you didn't, then email to nonvalid
addresses would be
Simon Troup wrote:
If you don't like the inherent potential for misuse present in a
mailing list such as this, don't use it, and unsubscribe. If you
have a particular copyright complaint about particular things that
you have posted, then pursue it.
You know, every day I get pornographic
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 at 0:05, Simon Troup wrote:
You would have me stop collecting email because it's inevitable? I do
what I can with filters, creative use of catchall email and blocking
emails at the server.
Why do you have a catchall? If you didn't, then email to
Why do you have a catchall? If you didn't, then email to nonvalid
addresses would be rejected by your domain's mail server, and you'd
never have to see it.
I set up catchall and then signup to (for example) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - if the
email becomes a problem I can block it specifically at
Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 12 Jul 2005, at 12:47 PM, Owain Sutton wrote:
Andrew Stiller wrote:
Dennis Bathory-Kitsz:
I'm looking for consensus from the group before I send a formal
takedown notice to their web hosts.
You'll get no such agreement from me. If copyright subsists in
these
Don't blame one list
I'm not blaming it on one source, you've imvented that.
I argued about the google archives and I'm arguing about this, I also prompted
the PHP and Suse webmasters to take action too. Basically I think all lists
need to be careful with email addresses.
The solution to
On 13 Jul 2005 at 0:44, Simon Troup wrote:
Why do you have a catchall? If you didn't, then email to nonvalid
addresses would be rejected by your domain's mail server, and you'd
never have to see it.
I set up catchall and then signup to (for example)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - if the email
Simon Troup wrote:
The solution to searchable archives shouldn't be in these archives which are
very slack with peoples email addresses.
Once again, I have little sympathy. You signed up. The very definition
of the 'private list' talked about earlier made it clear that your email
On 13 Jul 2005 at 0:56, Owain Sutton wrote:
Simon Troup wrote:
The solution to searchable archives shouldn't be in these archives
which are very slack with peoples email addresses.
Once again, I have little sympathy. You signed up. The very
definition of the 'private list' talked
At my age, I find it difficult to remember what I said yesterday,
never mind last week. If someone feels they want to archive all my
ramblings, good luck to them.
John
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 at 0:56, Owain Sutton wrote:
Simon Troup wrote:
The solution to searchable archives shouldn't be in these archives
which are very slack with peoples email addresses.
Once again, I have little sympathy. You signed up. The very
definition of the
John Bell wrote:
At my age, I find it difficult to remember what I said yesterday, never
mind last week. If someone feels they want to archive all my ramblings,
good luck to them.
John
I'll go with that. And my age doesn't even justify it ;)
Oh, I understand perfectly well why a catchall is attractive. But in
the age of spam, it means all the spam sent to non-valid email
addresses gets sent to the account defined as the catchall target.
Hi David
I get almost no spam to srtifically generated addresses - that hasn't proved to
The solution to searchable archives shouldn't be in these archives
which are very slack with peoples email addresses.
Once again, I have little sympathy. You signed up. The very
definition of the 'private list' talked about earlier made it clear
that your email address would be
Simon Troup wrote:
The solution to searchable archives shouldn't be in these archives
which are very slack with peoples email addresses.
Once again, I have little sympathy. You signed up. The very
definition of the 'private list' talked about earlier made it clear
that your email address
I'm not defending it per se. I'm wanting to point out the futility of
thinking you can beat spam by management of a mailing list.
I know I can't beat it, I can sure as hell try as that will help to minimise
it as much as possible.
The more exposure, the more likely addresses will land on
On 13 Jul 2005 at 1:20, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 13 Jul 2005 at 0:56, Owain Sutton wrote:
Simon Troup wrote:
The solution to searchable archives shouldn't be in these archives
which are very slack with peoples email addresses.
Once again, I have little sympathy.
Having dared to step away from this list for about 18 hours, I come
back to find myself about a hundred messages behind in this whirlwind
discussion. Now that I'm caught up, I'll add my own thoughts.
As a practical matter, I don't share Dennis B-K's distinction of this
list as a private
79 matches
Mail list logo
