mail archives
Kevin D. Clark
kevin_d_clark at access-4-free.com
Sun Jan 30 16:15:01 EST 2005
Benjamin Scott writes:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, at 11:22pm, kevin_d_clark wrote:
>>> If you have your own server, you could put up your own archives with
>>> your own Perl script, and likely many would thank you. I would.
>>
>> Throughout this thread I've been interested in solving a technical
>> problem that I was led to believe existed in the existing mail archive
>> server.
>
> *exasperated sigh*
>
> <FLAME level=mild>
>
> No. The problem is not a lack of Perl scripts. The problem is one of
> Real Life and Management and Manpower and all those other Real World things
> that get in the way of fun. I believe I've stated that more then once.
If you want to be exasperated, be my guest. Being indignant doesn't
help you win the argument at hand here, neither does attempting to
flame me or trying to tell me how the Real World works. If I didn't
have a thick skin and hold you in such high regard, I would otherwise
find such tactics to be vaguely insulting.
For the majority of this thread (which in actuality has been ongoing
for around 1.5 years) the vast majority of people on this list have
been under the impression that One Day a Long Time Ago the mail
archives were made to be non-public, not-accessible to search engines
because the maintainers of the archive were concerned about the
problem of spambot email address harvesting.
Where would people get such an idea?
: From: Benjamin Scott
: To: Greater NH Linux User Group <discuss at gnhlug.org>
: Subject: GNHLUG list archives (was: Unable to reach any GNHLUG link)
: In-Reply-To: <fp65emnbke.fsf at koan.cetaceannetworks.com>
: Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0402041241530.12258-100000 at dragon.inside.ntisys.com>
:
:
: On 4 Feb 2004, at 9:50am, kclark at cetaceannetworks.com wrote:
: > Why are the archives no longer publicly accessible?
: >
: > (http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss sez
: > "The current archive is only available to the list members.")
:
: That was somebody's quick-and-easy solution to the problem of email
: address harvesting. Given the time demands on the people maintaining
: GNHLUG's public resources, quick-and-easy counts for a *lot*.
:
: I'm not pleased with it as a long-term solution, myself. I firmly believe
: the list archives should be open and publicly searchable. (The discussions
: on the list can prove to be a valuable technical resource for others trying
: to locate information.) Long-term, I would prefer a more sophisticated
: spam-guard solution. But beggars can't be choosers. :-)
But now we have been informed that the problem of email address
harvesting wasn't the reason for this switch at all:
: From: Benjamin Scott
: Subject: Re: mail archives
: To: Greater NH Linux User Group <discuss at gnhlug.org>
: Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:57:55 -0500 (EST)
:
: On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, at 8:25am, clark_k at ... wrote:
: > Indeed, there was no discussion of whether this was an actual problem or
: > not before this change was made. No discussion at all.
:
: We needed a solution in a hurry and that was the best we could do.
:
: Note that the action in question had nothing to do with Derek Martin's
: bitching, but rather was due to an off-list issue with a party outside
: GNHLUG.
So, the people who knew the real cause for this switch (such as
yourself) allowed the people who didn't know about this problem (such
as myself) to post irrelevant postings related to this subject on the
gnhlug-discuss list. As for myself, I even posted a couple pieces of
working code that attempted to alleviate this problem. But apparently
people like myself were wasting their time chasing the wrong problem.
OK, whatever.
As I said before:
>> Throughout this thread I've been interested in solving a technical
>> problem that I was led to believe existed in the existing mail archive
>> server.
I have clipped some other posts that are relelvant to this thread:
: From: Benjamin Scott
: To: Greater NH Linux User Group <discuss at gnhlug.org>
: Subject: Re: I HATE SPAM (was Re: Mouse swapping on a laptop)
: Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308031410320.10266-100000 at dragon.inside.ntisys.com>
:
:
: I *would* prefer it if the archives at mail.gnhlug.org had automatic
: spam-guards. That works for everything, and not just when people choose not
: to mention an email address. But I'm not going to get broken up over it.
:
...and...
: Subject: Re: I HATE SPAM (was Re: Mouse swapping on a laptop)
: From: Bruce Dawson <jbd at ...>
: To: GNHLUG Discussion <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
: Message-Id: <1059968533.29817.407.camel at bruce.localnet>
:
:
: Interestingly enough, it was decided (back when we switched to mailman)
: to have the From/Reply-to address of this discussion list be that of the
: sender. The -org list is configured such that the From/Reply-to address
: is that of the list.
:
: The -org list does not show addresses in the archives.
:
: The discussion list does show addresses in the archives.
:
: Do we want to re-configure the discussion list to reply back to the
: list? And if the answer isn't unanimous how do we resolve the disputes?
:
: I should also point out, as is the case with most Unix OSen, there are
: several ways to solve this issue... All messages to the discussion list
: are currently on the web site (http://news.gnhlug.org). So those who
: wish to remain "anonymous" can get an account on the web site and
: "comment" on the postings under a pseudonym. But you must use the web
: site to do this.
...and...
: Subject: Re: Allowing remote root login
: From: Bruce Dawson <jbd at ...>
: To: GNHLUG Discussion <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
:
: This will probably start another flame war, but I'm getting upset by
: people who complain and yet do nothing to help the situation.
:
: [Flame mode on]
:
: Guys (and gals). This is free and open source. I've taken the initiative
: to put the mailing lists up. If the servers don't meet your needs, then
: do one or all of the following:
:
: * Start your own list using the list server software of your
: choice and your own server and ISP.
: * Fix the bugs (or enhance) the existing list server software
: (mailman).
:
: [Flame mode reduced]
:
: Several times in the past, people have complained about the software and
: its capabilities. And the sysadmins that have to implement it complain
: about the lack of documentation and the lack of features requested by
: our community.
:
: We seem to have lost sight of the greatest asset of Open Source: We have
: the power to change things!
:
: And yet we just sit around and complain.
:
: I'd like to implore you to, instead of taking the time to complain, take
: the time to look at the source and propose a fix! You will not only fix
: a problem, but you'll come away with feeling good about helping things
: out!
:
: --Bruce
There were a couple of other posts regarding this problem as well.
What I have gleaned from all of this is that:
1: upgrading mailman on the existing archive server is never going to
happen because of technical difficulties related to Python2 and the
fact that this is a production server that Bruce can't risk
destabilizing. The fact that newer software is available that offers
features/bugfixes is inconsequential.
2: (1) is irrelevant anyways since this wasn't the actual problem
that started all of this.
3: We can't even re-configure the discussion list to reply back to
the list because this will cause further destabilization and we all
know that this will cause a big flamewar anyways.
4: (3) is irrelevant anyways since this wasn't the actual problem
that started all of this.
4: Offers of technical assistance (in response to requests for
assistance) (such as scripts to obfuscate email addresses) are clearly
not deemed to be helpful.
(Speaking for myself, it feels like every single level-headed
suggestion that I have offered on this topic has been greeted with a
swift kick in the teeth. You're welcome...)
5: (4) is irrelevant anyways.
6: Anybody who volunteers to put together their own archive should
take care to not to include in this archive the email that in actually
caused the original archive to go private in the first place. Most of
the list only has clues as to what this email might have been (myself
included). So, until we know more, it would probably be best to just
throw away any any archives that existed before today.
7: There is no #7.
So, it appears like we need an alternate mail archive server. Several
folks have offered suggestions; I guess that we'll have to
investigate these. The suggestion of gmane.org was particularly
interesting to me, but this needs more investigation (I note right
from the start that gmane.org's web site says "Gmane requires that
users post to Gmane groups using a valid e-mail address") which might
put off certain Gnhlug member(s).
LAST THING: regarding your "Real World" point of argument. At no
point in this discussion have I ever put forth the notion that running
a mail archive server is easy (in terms of time, expense, headaches,
etc.). In reality, my only goal from the start of this thread has
been to make the existing mail archives more useful. I have even
offered working code towards this goal. I think that Bruce has
performed a tremendously valuable service by hosting the archives. I
believe that I have even sent Bruce mail in the past thanking him for
hosting these archives (if not, I would like to publicly say "thanks!"
right now). I believe that this renders any complaints that you have
regarding my unfamiliarity with the Real World baseless.
Regards,
--kevin
--
GnuPG ID: B280F24E And the madness of the crowd
alumni.unh.edu!kdc Is an epileptic fit
-- Tom Waits
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list