Re: Address munging

Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> Mon, 08 Jun 2020 20:01:23 +0300

Newsgroups	gmane.discuss
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dmitry writes:
>> In the case there is no justification for a given group stored anywhere, could you just provide me with a table of mailing lists where munger is turned on — Iʼll classify them into those like [email protected] and those which indeed might be obfuscated intentionally and need to deal (someday, perhaps) with them on case-by-case basis.
>
> I don't think you can conclude that a list owner is fine with no address encryption on Gmane just because the mailing list appears with unencrypted addresses in another archive.

In _their own_ archive; which is, by the way, is usually much more accessible for harvesters, than some NNTP server out of there.  Same for the lists which are known to be propagated to the distributed Usenet.

> If I had a mailing list that I had only agreed to have on Gmane because address encryption was turned on

Is there any single example of such a list?

> and Gmane turned it off without asking me, I would be pissed off

Iʼd like to reiterate, that in most cases it had obviously been turned _on_ without asking or even notifying anyone in charge of the list.

> removed from Gmane entirely.

If nothing else, thatʼs not so bad solution.  The next step would be me (or anyone else interested) asking for subscribing the list anew — without any obfuscation enabled, of course.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 247 B)