Re: Address munging

Dmitry writes:

> 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?

No. That is not what I wrote at all.

>> 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.

When Gmane sends a subscription request, it also sends an email to the
list owner explaining what Gmane is, and why Gmane as asking to
subscribe, and what options were chosen.

>> 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?

Of course not. Where did I write that? Please don't put words into my
mouth.

> Or do you simply pay too much attention to opinions of ‘list owners’?

I don't think so. Gmane couldn't work if mailing list owners did not
agree to have their lists carried by Gmane.

It would be pretty stupid not to pay attention to their opinion.

> Please keep in mind, that owning a list does not make them owning list
> _subscribers_, nor their articles, nor addresses.

Of course not. But when it's hard to read a list owners mind, it's even
harder reading the minds of all the list participants.

>> 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.

What do you mean by this? Plenty of mailing lists are hosted by the list
owner themselves.

> 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.

I understand that you think that the existance of a public archive must
mean that the list owner also would agree to having the list on Gmane.

This is not what happens in real life. Some list owners do not want
that. Regardless of how illogical you may think it is.

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

I don't see how your classification would change anything.

Regardless of how many other archives there are, you can't tell whether
a list owner of a mailing list on Gmane only agreed to it because
addresses are encrypted.

You have to ask each of them before changing anything.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "And if anybody asks me: Is it easy to forget?             Adam Sjøgren
  I'll say it's easily done, you just pick anyone      [email protected]
  And pretend that you never have met"