On 25/07/2011 09:56, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Could one of the list admins please turn the list archive
of the pydotorg-www list into a private one ?
I don't think it's a good idea to let our setup information leak
to the Internnet via search engines.
The *point* of pydotorg-www is that it is a
Hi Michael,
Michael Foord wrote:
On 25/07/2011 09:56, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Could one of the list admins please turn the list archive
of the pydotorg-www list into a private one ?
I don't think it's a good idea to let our setup information leak
to the Internnet via search engines.
The
On 25/07/2011 11:29, Michael Foord wrote:
On 25/07/2011 10:10, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Hi Michael,
Michael Foord wrote:
On 25/07/2011 09:56, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
Could one of the list admins please turn the list archive
of the pydotorg-www list into a private one ?
I don't think it's a good
M.-A. Lemburg mal@... writes:
If you look through the archives, it's very easy to find out about
the infrastructure setup being used to run python.org. Take e.g.
this thread as example:
http://markmail.org/thread/kcxkjbesmbweaaj6#query:+page:1+mid:kcxkjbesmbweaaj6+state:results
I'm not
Michael Foord wrote:
On 25/07/2011 12:26, M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
I have a very strong
preference for keeping the archives public unless we absolutely have to.
I'd rather offending messages were scrubbed from the archive than the
list archives made private.
That's not possible, I'm afraid,
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011, Chris Withers wrote:
On 25/07/2011 11:29, Michael Foord wrote:
We don't make the archives of other public lists private because someone
sent an email they shouldn't have done - in fact we generally refuse to
even remove those emails from the archive.
The detail revealed in
While having documentation of the setup is essential, I don't think
making that documentation available outside the group of
administrators is a good thing to do.
Martin I disagree. Administrators tend to forget where the information
Martin is stored, and how to access it;
