On 8/4/02 10:42 AM, "Beartooth" <karhunhammas@Lserv.com> wrote:
> What about real lists? Are auto-restrictions common? Do
> they mostly work off the would-be subscriber's address, or ....?
Increasingly so. Usually, the only guaranteed identification we have for a
person is the e-mail id. And so we're using that increasingly -- while it is
becoming less reliable (because of the proliferation of vanity domains (like
chuqui.com), and the increasing use of things like hotmail or mac.com as
forwarding points. ID by email address works if you have one email address.
When you have six... It gets complicated again. And that doesn't even get
into the issues when people are wholesale moved from domain to domain (msn
has changed customers email addresses three times now, or mediaone.net ->
attbi.com, or the home.com shutdown debacle, So even that has problems...
One 'solution' to that is to allow folks to subscribe an address, and then
define "aliases" that are considered the same address to the mail list.
The real answer, I guess, is the universal email address (and the universal
phone number and the universal, follow-me postal address, and... ) -- and it
creates issues of flexibility and privacy. Having multipe email addresses is
good, it just makes things more complex.
> i.e., do a vasectomy instead of a castration? <grin> Only
> you're adding a filter, really, rather than removing or
> disconnecting anything -- IF I understand you ....
Yes, I don't like modifying my archives. So I'm effectively writing a
filter. I don't see it as vasectomy as much as plastic surgery -- change the
loook enough that the guys looking for you can't recognize you. I guess it's
the mailing list witness protection program...
>> that the data that leaves your site is in a form you can lose
>> control over without getting stressed over it.
> Supposing such a form exists.
The form exists. Is it a perfect form? No. Does it serve the purpose? I
believe so. And I expect over time we'll likely improve it and/or change our
attitudes somewhat (and that's the main reason I had modifying archives.
It's only one policy decision reversal from being permanently broken)
> You're providing a guarded stage, or one behind a
> polycarbonate shield : those who wish can hold their dialog for
> anyone interested to hear, and yet be safe from rotten eggs -- and
> oil of vitriol. A good thing if do-able.
Eggs and tomatoes I don't care about. But as you note, if you can throw an
egg, you can throw a grenade.... And I care about grenades.... When it was
just eggs, I was the first to say "if you can't handle the criticism, stay
off the stage" --- especially to fellow egg-throwers.
> them -- fenced a/o guarded enclaves. I have a hunch population
> density is relevant :
It is. You can see that in pretty much every on-line population. The
transition from small and personal (rural) to big and impersonal (urban) has
never been smooth, and never been good for the "crime statistics" of the
population. Look at USENET today. It's about as urban as you'll find, and
the core of that "city" is basically rotted out in a classic urban blight
Now, some cities have found ways to renew and rebuild past the blight stage,
so I assume it's possible for usenet, also. If the right people find the
> Incidentally, there's also another form of electronic
> enclave, the private list.
The ultimate in gated communities -- the country club. That's not a
criticsm, I run a number myself. If you want to feel better about it, call
it a bridge club... (grin)
>> But, you know? I remember when we thought nothing of putting home
>> addresses and phone numbers in messages.
> A friend who teaches Old Testament at a local college has
> all that in her .sig -- and refuses to consider suggestions that
> she remove it, even now ....
Well, good for her. May she never meet the person who makes her regret it.
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
firstname.lastname@example.org -- http://www.chuqui.com/
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam my clothes down here, will you?