There isn't an argument, just a discussion as to what "threats" gmane does and
doesn't represent.
Any and all lists that do not wish to be archived by gmane should not be
archived. If that decision for list-managers is not taken by a vote of list
members then ignore my +1 for archiving list-managers on gmane.
gmane or the person who suggested list-managers to gmane should make sure
permission is granted before subscription and it was an oversight not to.
> If all you want to do is read list-managers using a newsreader, why not
> set up a private server on a spare linux box and use any of the various
> mail-to-news kludges to pump the mail into it?
been there, done that since 1995, and honestly it's something I'd rather have
someone else do, like gmane.
Adi
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 03:13:50PM -0400, Charlie Summers wrote:
> At 2:02 PM -0400 8/13/02, Aditya is rumored to have typed:
>
> > I would like list-managers to be on gmane.
>
> If all you want to do is read list-managers using a newsreader, why not
> set up a private server on a spare linux box and use any of the various
> mail-to-news kludges to pump the mail into it?
>
> I honestly don't understand the arguments here; seems to me there are two
> entirely seperate issues:
>
> 1) the gmane _concept_ is fine, but ain't nuthin' new; mail-to-news and
> news-to-mail gateways ain't that hard to find (or kludge together, for that
> matter), and:
>
> 2) there's nothing wrong with a centralized _server_ like gmane archiving
> mailing lists that the list manager permits onto the NNTP server. It is only
> a bad thing when the list manager is not asked or refuses permission, which
> happened to some on this list with gmane. (If the list manager chooses to
> allow the subscribership to vote, or makes the decision himself is up to the
> specific list manager and list. The list manager still speaks for the list in
> issues like this.) A perfect example of this is the YahooGroups nee eGroups
> archives; if the list managers weren't aware that it existed, it is at the
> very minimum improper and contrary to netiquette...probably illegal, too. I
> hold a copyright on this missive at the moment of creation, and by sending to
> GreatCircle I give them implicit license to distribute and archive it - I do
> NOT give Yahoo! license to do ANYTHING with it, and so they are violating my
> copyright if they are re-distributing and archiving it without the permission
> of Great Circle. (But then, I've been pretty clear about my low opinion of
> Yahoo!, so I'd gripe if they gave me a cupcake.)
>
> No one I read ever suggested the gmane _concept_ was by itself a bad
> thing. If a list manager prefers not to have his list on someone else's
> _server,_ however, that server should not archive it and I don't understand
> how anyone could argue _that_ wasn't proper, whether served by NNTP, HTTP, or
> Gopher. And it's easy to set up an internal NNTP server and a mail-to-news
> gateway internally, so you can read any list you want with a newsreader if
> you're determined to do so with lists who choose not to participate with
> gmane.
>
> So someone enlighten me as to the current argument again?
>
> Charlie
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
