From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Mar 02 07:47:42 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:47:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JVqPT-0005re-1G for llg-board@lojban.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:47:41 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080302154724.YXCG20314.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:47:24 -0500 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id wFhq1Y0043y5FKc0000000; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:41:50 -0500 Message-ID: <47CACC0A.1080103@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:47:22 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Lojban mailing list References: <200803012103.41741.jim@lojban.dabell.name> <20080302070023.GS24043@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20080302070023.GS24043@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 364 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board Robin Lee Powell wrote: >>Is there any chance you could take a look at this? Most mailing >>list software has options for obfuscation and subscriber-only >>posting, so I doubt it will be any trouble. > > I've historically been resistant to changing this option, Since we already have subscriber-only posting, he has half of what he wants, anyway. > because I > *like* people being able to send private mail on the basis of old > mailing list threads, if the opportunity arises. I agree. The only plausible restriction is to password-restrict the archives so that only subscribers could view them, and I wouldn't much like that either. Or maybe to have an option that a subscriber can request that his address be munged in the archives, but I wouldn't want to ask anyone to implement such a thing, because I can imagine to many places it wouldn't work (indeed address-munging has to be pretty sophisticated in order to work since someone can include an email address in the message body.) As in the Keith Lynch era, the occasional subscriber who wants more privacy than most of us feel necessary can choose to unsubscribe. Only if there were a major groundswell of sentiment, would I even support *considering* a change. lojbab