Re: [tlug] Should we stop password protecting the TLUG archives?

[Godwin Stewart <godwin.stewart@example.com>]

On 16/12/05, Zev Blut <zb@example.com> wrote:

> We started protecting the archives to help prevent our members from
> getting spammed.  If you would like the full history look here:
> http://www.tlug.jp/ML/0302/msg00186.html

Well, the addresses of mine that are viewable in that thread are so
heavily spammed nowadays anyway that making them viewable to spiders
again probably wouldn't make any difference whatsoever. They must be
on just about every "mirrions" CD in creation.

> * Do we reopen the archives?

It would be a good idea IMO.

> * Do we attempt to protect our members email addresses?
> ** If so, how should we do this?

How about using GD to convert recognized e-mail addresses into small
PNG files? Yes, it's CPU-hungry, but it's probably better than
destroying the address by modifying or discarding the domain part or
than using JavaScript to get the client browser to reconstitute an
address.

> * As search engines have become more powerful, almost anything we mail
> to the list will become available for an indefinite amount of time.
> Sometimes we may say things were in the heat of the moment that may
> come back to haunt us.
> ** Do we care about this?

No.

The amount of $clue required to realize that this is a *PUBLIC* forum
(and that, as such, participants' comments are made publicly and
remain available to the public) is extremely small. If you're not
happy discussing something in public then don't do it, unless....

> ** Should we allow users to ask for removal/anonymization of their
> mails from the archives?

Not if it requires manual intervention. OTOH, something that honours
e-mail headers such as "X-No-Archive: yes" could be workable. Those
who use a crippled MUA that doesn't allow the inclusion of arbitrary
headers (one virus distribution engine and rootkit^W^W^W^W^W MUA in
particular comes to mind) probably have bigger problems than archival
of their postings...

> ** Should we make it clear to new comers who are about to join the
> list about the archiving and what not?

Possibly. The best way to do so would probably be to mention the issue
in the initial mail people are sent that contains the code to confirm
their subscription. That way,

a) New subscribers can't claim they were notified after the fact (ie:
that they had to subscribe in order to find out that their postings
would be available to the general public)

and b) They can't complain that they weren't notified at all because
the notification was in the e-mail that they *had* to read and act
upon in order to join up.

> * Should we keep the archives closed, but choose highlights from the
> archive to put on the web site?
> ** Should we do this anyway?  If so who is going to volunteer to
> organize this?

Sounds too much like hard work :)

Not to mention potential disagreements about precisely *what* to put
up, unless it's at the discretion of just one person...

--
G. Stewart.
godwin.stewart@example.com