List Archive (Was: Re: p2p, anonymity and security)

[bscott at ntisys.com]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, at 11:59am, invalid at pizzashack.org wrote:
> I agree that the nature of this specific list is much more public than
> private, but I will maintain that the requirement to sign up in order to
> participate makes it a closed, i.e. semi-private, list.

  You can maintain whatever you want.  The list is open to anyone who wants
to participate.  There are no entrance requirements.  That fits the
dictionary definition of "public", if you care to look it up.

  There's also a web gateway.  It used to allow you to post; I think that
broke, but eventually, we want it to come back.

> There's a reason why most mailing lists are closed lists these days: to
> keep the rifraf (i.e. the spammers) out.

  Public places often have access control mechanisms (such as gates) to
prevent abuse.  That does not make them non-public.

  The only reason the list is closed is to keep it from being flooded with
junk-mail.  It used to be open; anyone could post.  Ideally, it still would
be, but the spam situation makes that unlikely.

> I also harp on this point to squash the idea that all mailing lists are
> and must be public.  It's simply not true, but many people seem to feel
> that way.

  Nobody is saying all mailing lists are and must be public.  However, I am
saying that *THIS ONE* is.

>> If you don't like this, my opinion is that you should fscking
>> unsubscribe.
> 
> I do not currently object to anything about the way the list is being run
> ... If I did, I would (as I always do) ask that it be changed, and if that
> failed, I assure you I would do as you suggest.

  There's nothing keeping anyone from doing anything they want with the
messages posted to this list.  For that matter, there is nothing keeping a
spammer from signing up to the list and harvesting all day long.  *It just
hasn't happened yet*.

> (though I would prefer that the archives were available, but with e-mail
> addresses removed)

  The archives are set "private" because nobody's had the time to install
actual spam-guard software.  The eventual goal is something like what
www.mail-archive.com uses, where the address is guarded but can still be
accessed.

> A private club which has one or more members who videotape its
> proceedings, and subsequently post them on the Internet, is still a
> private club.

  GNHLUG is not a private club.  Heck, GNHLUG doesn't even have an official
status.  The closest we ever came to a membership requirement was, "The
intersection of those who are subscribed to the mailing list and those who
attend the meetings".  About all you have to do to "be a part" of GNHLUG is
be interested in it.  This is by design.

> Though it's possible that some of the members may want to hunt you down
> for violating their privacy, depending on the situation.

  You're the only person I have ever met who thinks a publicly archived,
publicly accessible, open-to-anyone-who-subscribes mailing list has any
expectation of privacy.  I suspect you would have a hard time making a case
in a court of law -- due diligence would seem to imply that if one wants
privacy, one should not post publicly.

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |