List owners were not asked if it okay to enable address munging, were they? (was: Address munging)

Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:31:08 +0300

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

Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dmitry writes:
>> Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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).

But you have a single example, do not you?

I am asking it, since _all_ the lists affected Iʼd bumped into turned out to be regular public lists and addresses of their participants are easily discoverable.

Thatʼs my personal sampling, of course.  But as you are ignoring my question, whether it possible to have a table of all the list affected by munging be published, I have no any other.

>>> 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.

Could you elaborate it, please?

Among the above-mentioned lists only few had required subscriber to be confirmed by a moderator.

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