You'll excuse me for being a cranky bastard, but this discussion of
hiding email addresses was fascinating the first three times I saw it...
in 1990. It is now tired, and you are beating a horse which is not
merely dead, but a foul-smelling, rotted out carcass.
Please have the courtesy to move this nascent flame war off list so the
rest of us may discuss topics of more general interest to members of
this list, e.g. wireless networking.
I can only speak for myself, but if others share my views, then a single
message summarizing any new and novel conclusions that arise from your
off-list discussion will suffice.
(Dan)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 09:07:07PM +0000, HMM wrote:
> Alf Watt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escreve:
> >
> > The real problem is you're asking the network for protection when you
> > should really be protecting yourself. To relate this issue to wireless
> > networks, we've all seen the ongoing problems with firewalls, NAT, WEP,
> > WPA, 802.1X and all other network level 'protective' technologies which
> > make it possible to put and keep insecure systems online but have
> > completely broken the notion of a public internet.
>
> sorry but I really can not see what this has to do with anything here ...
>
> >
> > Please reconsider what you're asking, request like this weaken the
> > internet for all of us. The focus on 'trusted networks' or 'trusted
> > computing' instead of secure applications and protocols allows spam,
> > viruses and spyware to spread like wildfire once it gets past those
> > network layer defenses. You're seemingly innocent request to have your
> > identity obscured would reduce the amount of information available to
> > us on the archives, while providing little real protection.
>
> reconsider? Yes - our subscription.
> This has nothing to do with trusted networks, the issue here is that the
> service provider should be responsible for the data we send and MUST NOT
> publish the e-mail addresses at all.
> Makes absolute no sense fighting spam and then publishing emails. Indeed that
> is nonsense. Thats from the logic.
> In my opinion emails must not appear on public docs without owners permission.
> If the service provider do not honor this privacy he is not trustworthy.
> Publishing me private data could even be a legal issue.
>
> And this
>
> > > The real problem is that pipermail is no longer maintained and
> > > although its widely used there is no motivation for anyone to fix the problem.
>
> is a very childish excuse ... because the real problem is still using it ...
>
> HM
>
> --
>
> H.M.Meyer
> GPG Publickey http://wip.mega.net.br/hmm.asc
> {7105 8359 E100 0E4F B62D 0A76 1225 3F08 8224 22C8}
>
> --
> general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
