3 Feb
1999
3 Feb
'99
2:54 p.m.
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Doug wrote:
Oh, I like the archive too. But I like the
*individual* control something
like a "no archive" header would give you. I didn't mean to suggest that
the default should be "no archive".
I agree it's a valuable service and I applaud Kevan, but I also sympathize
with those who worry about slimey email address harvesting spammers, the
possibility of retribution for unpopular views, and the general sense of
surprise one has when finding an old "publication" quoted out of context
10 years after the fact.
An electronic archive of this list would be an incredibly useful research
tool for those trying to preserve old computers, given that lots of useful
information would be contained therein. As for spammers, munging all
email addresses in the archive would significantly decrease the threat.
Finally, Murphy says that if you're going to be quoted out of context,
it'll happen whether or not there's a public archive -- but if such an
archive exists, it would be trivial to determine the context of any such
quotes.
I've done research in the Cornell archives before, so I've become rather
accustomed to full archival. I get annoyed when records from 1890 have
been destroyed, either maliciously or due to neglect, and I'd think that
researchers will feel the same way a century from now -- wouldn't you, in
their place?
Brad Ackerman N1MNB "...faced with the men and women who bring home
bsa3(a)cornell.edu the pork, voters almost always re-elect them."
http://skaro.pair.com/ -- _The Economist_, 31 Oct 1998