Excuse my hyperbole regarding dates. Yes, I know the story of how
spam originated. My point was just that the ``should email addresses be
exposed in mailing list archives'' issue has been rehashed many times
over. Also, there are *far* more pressing problems facing the net at
large than this one, for example, come up with a solution for DOS
attacks and you'll make lots of people happy.
Yes the issue concerns everyone on the list, but the list isn't a list
for discussing the merit or lack thereof of whether or not our email
addresses appear in the archives. The first post on the subject made us
all aware of the problem. The six followups are just useless blather.
> > > 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 The real problem is that pipermail is no longer maintained and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
Actually, it's a damned good excuse unless,
a) You are willing to take over managing the list, and move to something
other than pipemail.
or
b) You are willing to take over development of pipermail and fix what
YOU perceive to be a problem, and plenty of others don't care enough
about to fix.
I can't stand people who mouth off about ``It's so easy to do x.'' when
x isn't particularly easy or trivial to do, and the speaker isn't
prepared to lift a damned finger to help with x.
Cheers. Nrn.
(Dan)
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 10:56:53PM +0000, HMM wrote:
> jajaja, excused ok
> but you're funny with your words
> I'll give you some better information
> email and spam was not an issue in 90 ...
> spam came up after Siegel and Canter from Phoenix sent a mass message to the
> use groups
> that was in 94 if I am not wrong and still not so much people felt bad about
> it
>
> and the issue about this list publishing our emails has indead really much to
> do with everybody here or are you the responsible listmaster ???
>
> follow your pray - don't flame ;)
>
> HM
>
>
>
> cubes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escreve:
> >
> > 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
> > >
> >
>
> --
>
> 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
