Re: Address munging

Dmitry writes:

> Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

Correct. I'm glad you follow the argument.

>> 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?

Yes, there are several (no, I don't have a list of them).

>> 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.

That is simply not true.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "The success of open source code is perhaps the            Adam Sjøgren
  only thing in the computer field that hasn't         [email protected]
  surprised me during the past several decades."