Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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 platform and using
> > DB2 as the database
> > 
> > ;-)
> 
> Depends if the list was is set to munge reply-to or not really, doesn't
> it.  And we know this kind of stuff only happens on the first thurday (not
> the day after the first wednesday) of the month.
> 

i'd love to chat about this, but i've got some goats going over my bridge
at 9

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Mark Fowler]

> > 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 the database
> 
> ;-)

Depends if the list was is set to munge reply-to or not really, doesn't
it.  And we know this kind of stuff only happens on the first thurday (not
the day after the first wednesday) of the month.

Later.

Mark.

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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 posting so
> much that they get overloaded and fall over? ;-)
> 

they wouldn't fall over if ..

they were written using java on a windows platform and using
DB2 as the database

;-)

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Mark Fowler]

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 over? ;-)

Later.

Mark.

-- 
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_>6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
   Name  => 'Mark Fowler',Title => 'Technology Developer'  ,
   Firm  => 'Profero Ltd',Web   => 'http://www.profero.com/'   ,
   Email => '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',   Phone => '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960'  )

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Dave Cross]

  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 really early ones. I've even got the ones where it was just me 
> > CCing a bunch of people.
> 
> I still have the original mail that Dave sent out somewhere ...

The other week I dug out the original comp.lang.perl.misc post.

Dave...

Re: Mailing List Archive

[David Cantrell]

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

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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 original mail that Dave sent out somewhere ...

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Dave Cross]

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 
> > CCing a bunch of people.
> 
> I just snarfed Richard's archive, don't suppose you could flesh it 
> out with the messages before that?

Very happy to do so, but I won't be in the vicinity of my PC that has
them on it until Sunday. I'll sort them out then.


It'll be in Eudora mbox format which is pretty similar to _real_ mbox
but for some reason Eudora doesn't store the envelope 'From' header 
so each entry starts 'From xxx@' or something like that - full
details in the 'Programming Internet Email' book.


Dave...

Re: Mailing List Archive

[David Cantrell]

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: [london_pm] FW: [london_pm] Arranging a date for the meet.
> 
> Bloody hell. makelist - there's a blast from the past :)
> 
> > And I think I have all to this point in time.
> 
> 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 just snarfed Richard's archive, don't suppose you could flesh it out with
the messages before that?

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

   Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Dave Cross]

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: "'London.pm List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:14:38 +0100
>  Subject: [london_pm] FW: [london_pm] Arranging a date for the meet.

Bloody hell. makelist - there's a blast from the past :)

> And I think I have all to this point in time.

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.

> Maybe I should bounce them all to the mailing-lists.com archiver?

Surely you jest :)

Dave...

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Richard Clamp]

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 starting to archive all the lists I serve.  With archives
> on webpages, protected by passwords.  The archives are stored in mbox
> format with no pretty printing whatsoever.

Woohoo :)

> > Richard - hoarder, with no use of a web archive anyhow :)
> 
> 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: "'London.pm List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 10:14:38 +0100
 Subject: [london_pm] FW: [london_pm] Arranging a date for the meet.

And I think I have all to this point in time.

Maybe I should bounce them all to the mailing-lists.com archiver?

-- 
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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 everything before that
on the machine at home.

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[David Cantrell]

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 for nervous lurkers.
> 
> If no-one objects I will put this in place this weekend.  I guess it will
> result in ~ 10 excess messages a week.

FWIW, I would rather not receive such messages.  I already get enough
subscription/unsubscription notices.  However, if you put in a suitable
header I can have procmail kill them for me.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

   Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced

Re: Mailing List Archive

[David Cantrell]

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, protected by passwords.  The archives are stored in mbox
format with no pretty printing whatsoever.

> Richard - hoarder, with no use of a web archive anyhow :)

Got a complete archive of this list?  I don't but would like.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

   Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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
> keen on the idea but approved the subscription anyway. (Though this may not
> have been for the hfb list but rather the later dircon.co.uk lists.)
> 

Total failure of recall.  Yes I did.   


/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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%40happyfunball.pm.org/mail5.html .)
> 
> Since I confirmed the subscription from my work address rather than as
> 'archive@jab.org', it went past Jonathan Stowe. He wasn't exactly
> enthusiastic about it, but still approved the subscription.
> 

I must have been drinking more than usual at that point as I have no
recollection - but yes Philip is correct I did approve the subscription as
my approval mailbox points out to me.

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Philip Newton]

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 anyway. (Though this may not
have been for the hfb list but rather the later dircon.co.uk lists.)

Cheers
Philip

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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 doubt that's a serious problem.
> 
> I assume that someone deliberately added mail-archive's bot to the
> list, because mail-archive certainly don't hunt down lists themselves.
> 
> If we have an explicit "no public archives" policy then presumably
> people will have the decency to honour it, and not subscrive archive
> bots to the list.
> 

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.
The idea of posting new subscriptions/unsubs to the list will mean that
these things will be spotted.

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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, when it
> > > started getting archived,) just so that I could be sure it was happening.
> >
> > how about if we notified the list everytime someone subscribed or 
> > unsubscribed
> 
> Eh, don't quite follow.
> 

I think the point is that the circumstance of this list being archived
without people knowing about it would not have arisen - well they could
ignore the message but they would have no excuse for not knowing.  People
can then make their own choices.  It also addresses the issue that some
people have raised that of course being a public list anyone could be
subscribed : your boss, your mother, Keith Hallawell ...

I will do this if no-one objects as I think its quite a good idea.  I
think that the list is already archived will defeat any provacy arguments.

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Philip Newton]

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 it, and not subscrive archive
> bots to the list.

What he said. Sorry again if this was, in fact, the case; I didn't perceive
it that way at the time.

Cheers,
Philip

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Philip Newton]

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 the subscription from my work address rather than as
'archive@jab.org', it went past Jonathan Stowe. He wasn't exactly
enthusiastic about it, but still approved the subscription.

alex wrote:
> 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 a valuable thing.

This is one of the main points he made -- that (some|many|most) people
wouldn't post so freely to a discussion list if they knew their words would
be archived for posterity.

I thought it would be a convenient thing to have around. I apologise if I
hurt anybody in doing this. I'll offer to unsubscribe the archiver bot from
the list if that's the consensus (though I'm sure others could do so as
easily -- it would be more of a token or symbolic thing for me to do it).

Flames to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Stowe]

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
> > > to our list.
> > 
> > I've got no real problem with having my contributions publically archived,
> > the list being open to all anyway.
> > 
> > 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 that I could be sure it was happening.
> > 
> 
> 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 for nervous lurkers.

If no-one objects I will put this in place this weekend.  I guess it will
result in ~ 10 excess messages a week.

/J\
-- 
Jonathan Stowe   |   
http://www.gellyfish.com |   I'm with Grep on this one 
http://www.tackleway.co.uk   |

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Robin Houston]

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 someone deliberately added mail-archive's bot to the
list, because mail-archive certainly don't hunt down lists themselves.

If we have an explicit "no public archives" policy then presumably
people will have the decency to honour it, and not subscrive archive
bots to the list.

 .robin.

-- 
Flee to me, remote elf!

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Philip Newton]

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 be amenable to removing the 
> archive. Their FAQ says that they don't delete stuff from their
> archives.

But if their archivebot is unsubscribed, then they'll stop archiving from
that point on.

Cheers,
Philip

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Philip Newton]

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, then it's only
a snapshot from month X to month Y, with nothing before or after.

Cheers,
Phi 'telnet lists.dircon.co.uk 25' lip

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Richard Clamp]

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 that I could be sure it was happening.
>
> how about if we notified the list everytime someone subscribed or 
> unsubscribed

Eh, don't quite follow.

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.

Richard - hoarder, with no use of a web archive anyhow :)

-- 
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Dave Cross]

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 parents/children reading that you were a complete pothead at 
> university :-)

Well, not so much parents/children - but the fact that potential clients
might find my opinions on certain subjects is a bit worrying. I think
I once lost a job at a bank because they saw the page on BAe on my 
website.

> So I'm all for the (void) approach. we have an archive it's 
> accessable by a simple username/password.

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.

Dave...

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Robert Shiels]

>
> 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 conversations in
pubs
> should be considered public knowledge just because that's a technical
> possibiltity.
>
If you were chatting to someone in the pub, and he was recording the
conversation so that he could publish it on his webpage the next morning,
what would you do?

I think this is similar to having what you say on a mailing list available
from google. I don't care if people overhear me in the pub, or if they track
down my friends later and ask them what I was saying. This is similar to
people joining the list, or reading the archive. But I'd feel bad if people
could do a random search and find my posts to the list.

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
parents/children reading that you were a complete pothead at university :-)

So I'm all for the (void) approach.
we have an archive
it's accessable by a simple username/password.

/Robert

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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 having my contributions publically archived,
> the list being open to all anyway.
> 
> 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 that I could be sure it was happening.
> 

how about if we notified the list everytime someone subscribed or 
unsubscribed



-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Richard Clamp]

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 list being open to all anyway.

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 that I could be sure it was happening.

-- 
Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Mailing List Archive

[jduncan]

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.

-- 
James A. Duncan
W: www.fotango.com
P: +44 207 251 7021
F: +44 207 608 3592

 PGP signature

RE: Mailing List Archive

[Jonathan Peterson]

> 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 not
private forums doesn't mean we can't try to establish a degree of privacy.
There strikes me as being a massive qualatative difference between  someone
searching for my name and a company's name to see what I've been saying
about that company, and someone having to find out what mailing lists I'm
on, and then subscribe to and read the lists waiting to see what I say.

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 conversations in pubs
should be considered public knowledge just because that's a technical
possibiltity.

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Mark Fowler]

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 say something in private, I'd do it off list.  Or on
irc.  Or on one of the private lists I'm a member of.

 4. However, it is apparent that certain people (read headhunters) are
reading this list and taking advantage of it (using my phone number.)

 5. As far as stuff getting back to my employer, well my employer has
benefited from me being on list something chronic.  The knowledge I've
gained, amongst other things, has been highly useful.  P.S. I'm late
for work.  Daryl, if you're reading this then I owe you an extra hour
;-)

So in conclusion, I'm for an open list.  But I don't care enough to object
either way.   I think the real question should be, do we munge
reply-tos or not 

Later.

Mark.

P.S. Oi, recruiters.  I'm happy where I work.  Ta.

1984: These are my personal opinions, and do not represent my employer.
-- 
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(length$_>6);' 'x(36-length($_)/2)."$_\n$a"} (
   Name  => 'Mark Fowler',Title => 'Technology Developer'  ,
   Firm  => 'Profero Ltd',Web   => 'http://www.profero.com/'   ,
   Email => '[EMAIL PROTECTED]',   Phone => '+44 (0) 20 7700 9960'  )

RE: Mailing List Archive

[Dave Cross]

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 
archive. Their FAQ says that they don't delete stuff from their
archives.

Also, in the general case this doesn't help us. There's nothing to
stop anyone subscribing a mail-reaper to the list at any time. 
mail-archive's bot is obvious as it's called [EMAIL PROTECTED], but they
don't need to be so easy to spot.

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.

Dave...

RE: Mailing List Archive

[Mike Davis]

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
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mailing List Archive
> 
> 
> 
> 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 a valuable thing.
> 
> -- 
> i recommend dramatically combined, shaped snack pastries for business.
> 

Re: Mailing List Archive

[alex]

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 a valuable thing.

-- 
i recommend dramatically combined, shaped snack pastries for business.

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Robin Szemeti]

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
> 
> this email is copyright of robin szemeti , archiving of this email
> is strictly prohibetted
> 
> and then call them up/fax them/go sit in their lobby/email them etc.
> telling them how they shouldnt be doing this

he he .. 

to be fair I don;t really mind em doing it sorta .. I means its useful
innit .. but I do get a funny 'they dint ask me first .. are they going
to become millioaires on the advertising revenue and I dont get a penny'
sorta thing ...

and as any fule kno .. just because you publish it on a public channel
does NOT mean you don't have copyright on what was written wether its
explicitly stated or not. (in the UK at least)

ahh whatever lifes too short to worry about it ... 

since this is being archived .. next week lottery numbers are ;

2
7
20
23
34
38

you just see if im right ...

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Mailing List Archive

[David Cantrell]

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 noticed a post during work hours?

If it was me sacked, I'd think "fine.  Bunch of cunts.  I don't want to
work for people like that anyway.  Oh, hello mr headhunter, how much
more are you offering?"

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

  This is nice.  Any idea what body-part it is?

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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 , archiving of this email
is strictly prohibetted

and then call them up/fax them/go sit in their lobby/email them etc.
telling them how they shouldnt be doing this

better still if everybody did this for just one or two messages
a year it would cause chaos

muhahahahahahahaha



-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Mailing List Archive

[James Powell]

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 are
> 
> if people object to their views being public, don't post them in what
> is a public forum - if this is still a problem, then the question should
> be should london.pm become a private forum, with people being added after
> a vote - this smells fishy to me ;-) ;-) ;-) [1]
> 
> personally, the day london.pm becomes a private, invite only forum, i'll
> be off to london-public.pm's mailing list (this may make london.pm even 
> more popular for those sensitive to signal/noise) - as for google knowing 
> too much about you, welcome too 1984+17

I don't have a problem with it, apart from not knowing about it beforehand,
especially as mail-archive.com doesn't seem to reveal email addresses
but I think making the list "private" is a different argument from putting
up a web-accessible archive.

To make it harder for google to find you - change your name Prince style.

jp

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Robin Szemeti]

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 employees could read everything you
> write then:
>   o grow up
>   o conversations in the pub are not the same as a mailing list
>   o people are leaky in real life - it pays to be honest all the time

at first I thouught 'ooh an archive .. thats kewl'

then someone mentioned it was a public archive, outside our control ...
'uhh oh!  I don't like that! .. I mean I could say somethng about someone
and they could find it and .. eeug'

and then I thought 'but .. on the other hand the person could be
subscribed RIGHT NOW anyway .. so i guess it makes no difference.. mean
what you say and say what you mean.  so .. an archive .. kewl :)'

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
objection to an archive per-se, even a public one.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Kieran Barry]

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 employees could read everything you
> write then:
>   o grow up
>   o conversations in the pub are not the same as a mailing list
>   o people are leaky in real life - it pays to be honest all the time
> 
> I'm proud of everything google finds out about me. Why shouldn't you
> be?
> 
I go trawling search engines to see what they turn up about me also.
It's fun.

But

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 noticed a post during work hours?

Bear in mind, we are living with Big Brother now.

Regards

Kieran

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Paul Makepeace]

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

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Greg McCarroll]

* 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
is a public forum - if this is still a problem, then the question should
be should london.pm become a private forum, with people being added after
a vote - this smells fishy to me ;-) ;-) ;-) [1]

personally, the day london.pm becomes a private, invite only forum, i'll
be off to london-public.pm's mailing list (this may make london.pm even 
more popular for those sensitive to signal/noise) - as for google knowing 
too much about you, welcome too 1984+17

i saw a good post today on abou, someone was complaigning that the older
sci-fi books were crap because they were too close to reality (they
didn't realise the significance of this and so were flamed, the flame
got to abou)

grep - i was called this by a non-london.pmer recently

[1] you++ to anyone who gets the joke apart from stevem

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Robin Houston]

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.

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Leon Brocard]

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 grow up
  o conversations in the pub are not the same as a mailing list
  o people are leaky in real life - it pays to be honest all the time

I'm proud of everything google finds out about me. Why shouldn't you
be?

Leon
-- 
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
yapc::Europehttp://yapc.org/Europe/

... Bioengineers wear designer genes

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Robin Houston]

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 emails live for ever.


However:

- Google already knows more about me than I'd like ;-)
- We don't need an archive: it's not exactly going to
  contain useful information.
- The hoarders among us will have our own archives.


So I vote against a public archive.

 .robin.

Re: Mailing List Archive

[Michael Stevens]

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 like the idea.

Mailing List Archive

[Dave Cross]

>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 knows about mail-archive can find anything posted
to our list.

I just wanted to make sure that anyone knew that this was happening and
give everyone the chance to air their views. If the majority are against
it then I'll do what I can to prevent it.

In there meantime, you might be interested to know that mail-archive
claims that they honour the X-No-Archive mail header.

Dave...

-- 
http://www.dave.org.uk | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Data Munging with Perl