* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > I sez:
> > >
> > > Is this a collective attempt to crash mail archiving bots by posting so
> > > much that they get overloaded and fall over? ;-)
> > >
> >
> > Then grep sez:
> >
> > they wouldn't fall over if ..
> >
> > they were writt
> > I sez:
> >
> > Is this a collective attempt to crash mail archiving bots by posting so
> > much that they get overloaded and fall over? ;-)
> >
>
> Then grep sez:
>
> they wouldn't fall over if ..
>
> they were written using java on a windows platform and using
> DB2 as
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Dave Cross wibbled:
>
> > The other week I dug out the original comp.lang.perl.misc post.
>
> I think I have a recording of someone bashing a stick near a big black
> rectangle somewhere too...
>
> Is this a collective attempt to crash mail archiving b
Dave Cross wibbled:
> The other week I dug out the original comp.lang.perl.misc post.
I think I have a recording of someone bashing a stick near a big black
rectangle somewhere too...
Is this a collective attempt to crash mail archiving bots by posting so
much that they get overloaded and fall
At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:37:38 + (GMT), Jonathan Stowe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> >
> > I've had a couple of mail disasters which have meant me losing the
> > odd days-worth here or there, but I'm pretty sure I've got all of
> > the re
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 03:37:38PM +, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> I still have the original mail that Dave sent out somewhere ...
Show off!
--
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> I've had a couple of mail disasters which have meant me losing the
> odd days-worth here or there, but I'm pretty sure I've got all of the
> really early ones. I've even got the ones where it was just me CCing
> a bunch of people.
>
I still have the o
At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:58:28 +, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've had a couple of mail disasters which have meant me losing the
> > odd days-worth here or there, but I'm pretty sure I've got all of
> > the really early ones. I've even got the ones where it was just me
> >
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 09:52:45AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:44:31 +, Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: "Cross, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "'London.pm List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:14:38 +0100
> > Subject: [lond
At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:44:31 +, Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Got a complete archive of this list? I don't but would like.
>
> Not complete, but I think I subscribed pretty early. The earliest
> post I have is:
>
> From: "Cross, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'Londo
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:27:02PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:00:24PM +, Richard Clamp wrote:
>
> > Personally I like to be able to get mbox archives in preference to web
> > archives, but then I like my mail client much more than my web broswer.
>
> Same here.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:00:24PM +, Richard Clamp wrote:
>
> > Richard - hoarder, with no use of a web archive anyhow :)
>
> Got a complete archive of this list? I don't but would like.
>
On this machine I have every message for a year on ev
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:16:46PM +, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>
> > how about if we notified the list everytime someone subscribed or
> > unsubscribed
>
> This can be done ver', ver' easily - It would also have the positive
> benefit of breaking t
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:00:24PM +, Richard Clamp wrote:
> Personally I like to be able to get mbox archives in preference to web
> archives, but then I like my mail client much more than my web broswer.
Same here. I'm starting to archive all the lists I serve. With archives
on webpages,
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Philip Newton wrote:
> Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> > I must admit that I could have spotted this if I had known what I was
> > looking for - I dont tend to pay much attention to the
> > subscribe messages.
>
> You did spot it. I remember you mailed me about it saying you weren'
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Philip Newton wrote:
> I suppose at this point I should point out that it was I that subscribed
> mail-archive.com's bot to the list. Not sure when, but looking at the
> archive, it seems to be roughly end of September 2000. (See
> http://www.mail-archive.com/london-list%40ha
Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> I must admit that I could have spotted this if I had known what I was
> looking for - I dont tend to pay much attention to the
> subscribe messages.
You did spot it. I remember you mailed me about it saying you weren't too
keen on the idea but approved the subscription an
* Jonathan Stowe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> If no-one objects I will put this in place this weekend. I guess it will
> result in ~ 10 excess messages a week.
>
with current volumen, this is a drop in the pond
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Robin Houston wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 06:50:59AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> >
> > This is all a fine plan, but it doesn't prevent external people from
> > achiving us in the same way that mail-archive do. I really don't think
> > there's a foolproof way to prevent i
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Richard Clamp wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:35AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> > * Richard Clamp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > That said I would have liked to have been informed of it when subscribing to
> > > the list (or for those of us that have been here for
Robin Houston wrote:
> I assume that someone deliberately added mail-archive's bot to the
> list, because mail-archive certainly don't hunt down lists themselves.
Yes. See my other post.
> If we have an explicit "no public archives" policy then presumably
> people will have the decency to honour
I suppose at this point I should point out that it was I that subscribed
mail-archive.com's bot to the list. Not sure when, but looking at the
archive, it seems to be roughly end of September 2000. (See
http://www.mail-archive.com/london-list%40happyfunball.pm.org/mail5.html .)
Since I confirmed
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Richard Clamp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:20:28PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > It seems that mail-archive.com have been archiving our list for some
> > > time and anyone who knows about mail-archive can find anything p
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 06:50:59AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> This is all a fine plan, but it doesn't prevent external people from
> achiving us in the same way that mail-archive do. I really don't think
> there's a foolproof way to prevent it.
I doubt that's a serious problem.
I assume that
Dave Cross wrote:
> At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:23:17 -, Mike Davis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why don't we make our own archive and ask mail-archive.com to stop
> > doing their thing? Then we have control of what is published and
> > everyone's happy...
>
> I don't think that mail-arc
Dave Cross wrote:
> If the majority are against it then I'll do what I can to
> prevent it.
The obvious thing would be to arrange for archive@jab.org (or whatever it
is) to unsubscribe from the list. I believe they don't delete archived
articles, but if they aren't subscribed to the list any more
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:50:35AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Richard Clamp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > That said I would have liked to have been informed of it when subscribing to
> > the list (or for those of us that have been here for donkeys, when it
> > started getting archived,) jus
At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:59:34 -, "Robert Shiels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I never say anything I wouldn't stand by on any list, but as the
> search engines get better, more people than I'd like will have access
> to what I say. How many of you who have discussed drug use would like
> th
>
> Leon brought up the matter of conversations in pubs. There's no reason why
> someone coulnd't hire a sleuth to turn up to the london.pm meeting posing
as
> a new member and get them to find out who's saying what. But that's a big
> leap to take, and not an argument for saying that all conversa
* Richard Clamp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:20:28PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> > It seems that mail-archive.com have been archiving our list for some
> > time and anyone who knows about mail-archive can find anything posted
> > to our list.
>
> I've got no real problem
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:20:28PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> It seems that mail-archive.com have been archiving our list for some
> time and anyone who knows about mail-archive can find anything posted
> to our list.
I've got no real problem with having my contributions publically archived,
the
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:07:18AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * James Powell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > To make it harder for google to find you - change your name Prince style.
> >
>
> good idea!
>
> - greg of wales
This is the best laugh I've had in a little while. Thanks.
jame
> Best idea that I came up whilst thinking about it last night was to
> configure majordomo to automatically add an 'X-No-Archive' header to
> all mails on the list. But even that only avoids archives that play by
> the rules.
Seems like a good idea to me. The fact that mailing lists are ultimate
This is my two pence worth:
1. I stand by everything I've ever said on the the list. If I didn't
mean it I wouldn't have said it.
2. However, I can see problems with people taking things I've said out of
context. Pah, so be it. This is the problem with the world.
3. If I wanted to
At Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:23:17 -, Mike Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why don't we make our own archive and ask mail-archive.com to stop
> doing their thing? Then we have control of what is published and
> everyone's happy...
I don't think that mail-archive would be amenable to removing
Title: RE: Mailing List Archive
Why don't we make our own archive and ask mail-archive.com to stop doing their thing? Then we have control of what is published and everyone's happy...
> -Original Message-
> From: alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, Ja
a public archive containing all our email addresses is obviously bad.
no-spam countermeasures help, but it's an ugly solution..
it's also about atmosphere. i don't like contributing to a friendly,
discussive list that's archived and searchable by anyone who happens to
drop by. mutual trust is
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> * Robin Szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > I must admit I don;t particularly like the idea of someone else holding
> > this info though .. I mean .. its like 'ours' innit .. but i have no
>
> i'm sure you could do something in your sig, along the lines o
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:24:07PM +, Kieran Barry wrote:
> It isn't a question of google finding out about you: it is about how
> much information you want made available to complete strangers. How
> would you feel if a member of this list was sacked because someone
> accessed an archive and
* James Powell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> To make it harder for google to find you - change your name Prince style.
>
good idea!
- greg of wales
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
* Robin Szemeti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> I must admit I don;t particularly like the idea of someone else holding
> this info though .. I mean .. its like 'ours' innit .. but i have no
i'm sure you could do something in your sig, along the lines of
this email is copyright of robin szemeti
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:24:44PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> * Robin Houston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:14:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
> > > o grow up
> >
> > Hey! No need to get defensive till you lose the vote :-)
> >
>
> i vote for no vote, keep thin
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> Robin Houston sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > - This is a public list. Anyone can subscribe using an advertised
> > address.
>
> This is the key point. It is a public list. If you don't like the idea
> that your potential employers or employee
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Leon Brocard wrote:
> Robin Houston sent the following bits through the ether:
>
> > - This is a public list. Anyone can subscribe using an advertised
> > address.
>
> This is the key point. It is a public list. If you don't like the idea
> that your potential employers o
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 11:24:44PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> [1] you++ to anyone who gets the joke apart from stevem
This is clearly a red ha^Herring. Ignore.
Besides,
Paul
* Robin Houston ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:14:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
> > o grow up
>
> Hey! No need to get defensive till you lose the vote :-)
>
i vote for no vote, keep things as they are
if people object to their views being public, don't post them in
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 09:14:08PM +, Leon Brocard wrote:
> o grow up
Hey! No need to get defensive till you lose the vote :-)
.robin.
Robin Houston sent the following bits through the ether:
> - This is a public list. Anyone can subscribe using an advertised
> address.
This is the key point. It is a public list. If you don't like the idea
that your potential employers or employees could read everything you
write then:
o gr
Well, this discussion has been beaten to death on IRC,
so I feel like I'm repeating myself here. But for the
public record: ;-)
- This is a public list. Anyone can subscribe using an advertised
address.
- We're not plotting to bring down the government.
- "Information wants to be free." Old e
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 08:20:28PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> >From the discussion on IRC, it seems that Leon's summary mail has opened
> a bit of a can of worms. There are a number of people who don't like the
> idea of a publically advertised archive of this mailing list.
For the record, I don'
>From the discussion on IRC, it seems that Leon's summary mail has opened
a bit of a can of worms. There are a number of people who don't like the
idea of a publically advertised archive of this mailing list.
It seems that mail-archive.com have been archiving our list for some
time and anyone who
51 matches
Mail list logo
