Re: List owners were not asked if it okay to enable address munging, were they?

Dmitry writes:

>>> 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?

No, I don't. You'll just have to believe my word.

> 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.

I don't deny that that is your experience. I'm just telling you that
your experience is not complete. There are a _lot_ of lists on Gmane.

> 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.

It's not my data to release, but obviously it would be possible to
create such a table.

However, I don't think it would be a good idea to release such a table,
given the attitude towards list owners displayed by people such as
yourself.

>>> 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?

Your statement is false.

For every subscription request that has been sent, an informational
email has also been sent to the list owner, including the information
you say has not been disclosed.

So when you write that noone in charge of the lists have been notifed,
that is not true. Every listowner has been notified.

I don't know how to elaborate further: Your statement is incorrect.

If I didn't assume good faith, I would say it is a lie.


  Best regards,

    Adam

-- 
 "Hell froze over in the geek community yesterday           Adam Sjøgren
  as Mozilla 1.0 was finally released."                [email protected]