Re: [tlug] Email address munging in the TLUG archives

[Edward Wright <edw@example.com>]

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 04:55:00PM +0900, Josh Glover wrote:
> We basically need to decide if we want people to be able to decipher
> email addresses or not. If so, I like your idea or a Javascript text
> hack. If not, I think we should simply replace everything in the
> address after the @ sign, e.g. your address becomes: Jim
> <jep200404@example.com>

Early predictions, based on extremely complex statistical analysis, are
for a landslide victory for opening the archives.

Perhaps we need a second vote on this issue.

I think it's worth considering that many of the email addresses in the
older archives are probably no longer good and that many of the
subscibers from ages past are no longer on the list.

In deference to those who have gone before (and whose addresses are
still good), and are not on the list to express their willingness to
recieve unsolicited <g> email from all over the globe, and not seeing
the point of providing email addresses to the world at large, I think
it would be best not to make email addresses decipherable at all.

If we want non-subscribers to be able to respond to list posts, perhaps
an alternative is available - maybe an address that forwards to the list
or a gmane presence. (Tho those kinds of solutions sort of make
subscribing moot in the first place.) Or of course, they could
subscribe......

just thoughts......

E