On Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:30:06 -0700
Chuq Von Rospach <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/02 1:10 PM, "J C Lawrence" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Among list owners its not a particularly uncommon view. However
>> among list users I find it is rather uncommon -- the more laissez
>> faire model which says that content is essentially public domain as
>> soon as it leaves your network seems more common at a percentage
> I don't disagree, but I think you're missing the point.
> It's not content.
To some it is, but I agree, not all.
> It's (sigh) spam.
Aye, there's that. I'm increasingly convinced of late that lists will
be forced to obscure the addresses on the messages they send out
TMDA-dated style. Its not a difficult engineering problem, its not even
a particularly difficult SysAdm or community problem in doing this. It
adds a possibly significant processing load (not storage) to the list
host as he then needs to deal with (forward or discard) mail to such
dated addresses, but that's not an impossible problem or load. The
problem is in training the great unwashed to understand that addresses
can be date limited.
One of my next tasks is to see about reworking my web archives so that
all email addresses on there are TMDA dated addresses with a time limit
of 48hrs after the browser request to view the archive page. Its a
little expensive on HTML generaion load, but its quite do-able.
Note: GMane already (partially) offers this support.
Next after that for me is to wedge-fit a TMDA-like filter under the
exploder side of Mailman, processing headers and message bodies (but
leaving Message-IDs alone). Bit of an interesting engineering problem
there, but nothing impossible.
Ahh, innit wonderful the way topics migrate from this list to
mailman-developers and back again?
J C Lawrence
---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
email@example.com He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.