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, January 26, 2001 3:22 AM
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 the
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
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 ultimately
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.
james.
--
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
* 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 with
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
their
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,) just so
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,
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-archive would
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
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 posted
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
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
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 donkeys,
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 it.
I
* 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
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
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
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't too
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 the ice
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. I'm
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: fx sound="rummage"/
From: "Cross, David" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
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
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
* 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 bots by
* 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 written using java on a windows
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
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't
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
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
* 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 what
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, policy type="groucho marx" /
Paul
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 or
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 things as they
* 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 ,
* 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
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 of
39 matches
Mail list logo
