On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 11:55:15AM -0800, Eric Leach wrote:
> Hello. As you already know, we have incorporated support for mail lists
> through our web site at http://www.remarq.com/ . Up until now we have
> been addressing the concerns of list owners on an as needed basis. We
> would like to address list owner's concerns in a centralized forum, so I
> am posting this here.
I see that you have time to defend your operations here, but NOT
time to reply to the message that I sent you about the lists which I own.
(But at least you seem to have removed them. Good. Make sure it
stays that way.)
However, you don't seem to understand something fairly basic about
the difference between Usenet newsgroups (NOT "message boards", btw:
do you *really* think you're helping anyone by mislabeling them?)
and mailing lists.
Usenet newsgroups are a shared public resource which exist by the combined
efforts of those who run news servers, moderate newsgroups, contribute
to newsgroups, author FAQs for them, and so on. They have been constructed
over a period of ~20 years in this fashion.
Mailing lists are a publicly-ACCESSIBLE resource which are almost
entirely owner and maintained by individuals or organizations. Those
individuals/organizations are the sole and final arbiters of how
those mailing lists will be run, where they will be archived (IF
they're archived), how subscriptions will be managed, and everything
else about them.
Note the difference between a public resource and publicly-accessible
resource. It's important. These mailing lists do not BELONG to you.
They belong to other people. You are taking them without permission,
which is something you should have learned not to do much earlier in life.
Worse yet, you are materially affecting their operation (by forcibly
imposing your mechanism on the legitimate owners of these resources),
depriving their owners of the ability to run them as they see fit.
Do you understand that doing these things is wrong?
(I've asked Tim Wentz to send here what he sent to you -- I'll be
very interested to see your responses to his points, which elaborate
on the above.)