-> If reference.com's new FAQ is to be believed they have changed their
-> tune. They now say:
-> "We will only archive the postings to a mailing list if given explicit
-> permission from the list owner."
-> They still have a statement that confuses "publicly accessible" with
-> "public domain". But if the above is true, I don't really mind.
A long while back, reference.com requested to archive one of my mailing
lists. They sent ME the request first, and it said something along the
lines of "if we don't hear from you, we won't archive your list". To
see if they keep their word, I stayed quiet for two months. During that
time, I checked out their site, watched for attempts to subscribe,
listened to the chatter here about them, etc. To be honest, I was
impressed that they were above board from the start.
I just recently gave them permission to archive some of my lists with
the understanding that as long as their services were free (i.e., anyone
could visit their site and search my/their/our archives without having
to become a member or anything like that), they would be welcome at my
site. I told them I would select the lists they could archive in the
future, and that several of my closed lists were off-limits.
It's only been a few weeks since they officially started archiving the
postings here, but overall, I'm pleased with reference.com. I'm hoping
the future will prove out my trust, but at this point, I think they are
one of the few archivers that I'll let into my lists.
As people have said in here before, if these places would just ASK
before doing something, they'd find more amenable responses. I think
reference.com must've been listening, because they are the ONLY one who
did ask first... More power to them.
(NOW, if someone can only shut that damn listinfo stuff off, my listserv
can relax in peace! Geez, what a mess! ;-)