Why disabling the munging should be opt-in while enabling it was opt-out? (was: Address munging)

Dmitry Alexandrov <[email protected]> Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:59:37 +0300

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

Adam Sjøgren <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

So you got my point, I believe.


>>> 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.

Well..., I did not.  Please excuse me, if what Iʼve written looks like that.

> 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.

So why not just send an email again, explaining the change in options?

Or even easier (no drafting of rationale required): to subscribe the list anew and send that usual letter with the new options chosen.

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