Re: Address munging

Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> Mon, 08 Jun 2020 19:58:12 +0300
Newsgroups	gmane.discuss
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> And I don't see how being able to read the mailing list with encrypted addresses is worse than not having the mailing list [archive on Gmane] at all.

Do you mean, that I (or anyone interested) can send a normal subscription request for, say, [email protected] and it will be resubscribed with no encryption?

> Dmitry writes:
>> Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Some mailing lists would say no to Gmane carrying their list without the encryption.
>>
>>> If the mailing list owner has agreed to have the list on Gmane on the basis of encryption being on, it would be rude of Gmane to just turn it off, right?
>>
>> That is, there are such lists?
>
> It is impossible to automatically tell whether the list owner accepted Gmane's subscription because encryption was turned on, or if the list owner would be fine with it turned off.

Or whether the list owner even aware of Gmane at all, as most lists can to connected to archive by anyone.

> And when you don't know that, you can't just turn it off and expect no list owner to be unhappy - and rightfully so.

Yet you can start archiving any public list and expect no list owner to be unhappy?

Or do you simply pay too much attention to opinions of ‘list owners’?  Please keep in mind, that owning a list does not make them owning list _subscribers_, nor their articles, nor addresses.

>> E. g., full and uncrippled archives of gnu.org, nongnu.org and libreplanet.org are easily available via HTTP at [1], yet, for example, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] are affected.
>
> Sure. And you can tell from that what the list owners think?

If by listowners you mean people usually reachable by ${list}-owner@${domain} address, I can tell for sure, that whatever they think on the matter is nullified by their own list hoster.

And I can tell with a great likelihood that they are fine with public archiving, since there _are_ groups even on gnu.org that are not publicly archived there or elsewhere, obviously due to a wish of their owners.

There are also some servers, that do have archives which are not so user- and harvester-friendly like on gnu.org or debian.org — riseup.net, for instance.

Thatʼs why I proposed you to publish a list of affected groups, so I (or someone else) be able to classify them.

>> I guess, theyʼd picked up a ‘conceal addresses’ flag only because few years ago a subscription form featured it turned on by default,
>
> Looking at the page in the Wayback Machine the default seemed to be no encryption until somewhere between August 10 and August 14, 2006 and it stayed like that until at least July 8, 2016.

That is, most of Gmaneʼs life.  Thanks for verifying my guess.
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 247 B)