2 Apr
2000
2 Apr
'00
8:32 a.m.
Hi all,
I know that Kevan posted that he's working on getting his archives back
up, but a question in the meantime...
I've been thinking of making a new archive of the list available at
retrobytes.org (starting with this month); any comments/concerns/advice?
Do I have to get anyone's explicit permission to do this?
Lastly, assuming I go through with this, would people prefer that I set
Mhonarc to obfuscate everyone's email addresses? The benefit, of course,
is that a spammer's address crawler couldn't pick up everyone's addresses
from the page like they do on newsgroups; the drawback
is that people
wouldn't be able to directly contact the authors.
If the general feeling is that you'd rather the addresses be hidden,
perhaps I could create two archives...one private for classiccmp list
members to search the archives *with* addresses, and one public with the
obfuscated addresses.
As usual, any imput at all would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Aaron
2 Apr
2 Apr
9:24 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 676 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000402/f22e3575/at…
10:10 a.m.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for asking... I think you should have a single archive with
the Email addresses erased. If I find an old message, and want to
converse with that person, I can ask on the list for contact
information. If he (or she :) isn't on list anymore, they probably
aren't involved with good computers anymore...
Just my opinion... With that and 2 cents you can buy a '286 PC...
Clint
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Aaron Christopher Finney wrote:
Hi all,
I know that Kevan posted that he's working on getting his archives back
up, but a question in the meantime...
I've been thinking of making a new archive of the list available at
retrobytes.org (starting with this month); any comments/concerns/advice?
Do I have to get anyone's explicit permission to do this?
Lastly, assuming I go through with this, would people prefer that I set
Mhonarc to obfuscate everyone's email addresses? The benefit, of course,
is that a spammer's address crawler couldn't pick up everyone's addresses
from the page like they do on newsgroups; the drawback is that people
wouldn't be able to directly contact the authors.
If the general feeling is that you'd rather the addresses be hidden,
perhaps I could create two archives...one private for classiccmp list
members to search the archives *with* addresses, and one public with the
obfuscated addresses.
As usual, any imput at all would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Aaron
5:06 p.m.
The functional difference between a mailing list and a newsgroup is
privacy. I would prefer that archives were only available to the members of
the list, but the last archive was open and several search engines now have
our text in their databases, so its closing the barn door after the horse
is gone.
OTOH 99% of what we say is done in a "public" context.
Given the recent floppy thread what we need are summaries, not archives.
7:41 a.m.
On 3 Apr 2000, Eric Smith wrote:
What is needed s a clear concise floppy FAQ! It would put all this to bed
once and for all and insure the knowledgebase stays intact.
Allison
Given the
recent floppy thread what we need are summaries, not archives.
Since no one is going to write summaries, and even if someone did, they
probably wouldn't have enough detail to be good for searching, I have to
disagree. We do need archives.
10:48 a.m.
I've been wondering about this, actually. Wasn't there talk of putting a
FAQ together a couple of years ago? Was anything ever done on it?
I'd be happy to help compile/edit a faq for the list, if anyone else is
interested in tackling this.
It just seems that the same questions (and arguments) have been popping up
every few months for years. Anyone who's interested in doing this, go
ahead and email me privately.
Cheers,
Aaron
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 allisonp(a)world.std.com wrote:
On 3 Apr 2000, Eric Smith wrote:
What is needed s a clear concise floppy FAQ! It would put all this to bed
once and for all and insure the knowledgebase stays intact.
Allison
Given the
recent floppy thread what we need are summaries, not archives.
Since no one is going to write summaries, and even if someone did, they
probably wouldn't have enough detail to be good for searching, I have to
disagree. We do need archives. 
11:52 a.m.
New subject: Just the FAQs' (was: Re: Mailing list archives? Questions...)
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 allisonp(a)world.std.com wrote:
<disjointed ramblings>
I think there are a couple things that are needed. One is a site that holds
and or provides pointers to the FAQ's, the other is some serious FAQ
writing/updating. The perfect example is the MicroVAX FAQ. It's *so* out
of date in some parts that it isn't funny. While some things just need
found and or updated, others really should be written up.
Is there any site out there that you can go to select the manufacturer/type
computer you're interested in, and then have it point you were you want to
go?
For example, I go to this hypothetical site, and select Apple ][ and it
points me to the various Apple ][ FAQ's and other sources of info. Then I
select PDP-8's and it sends me to the PDP-8 FAQ and sites with info on the
PDP-8.
I guess what I'm saying is we need a sort of manually done Yahoo for classic
computer info. A lot of the info is out there, but finding it can be a
nightmare! FAQ's should be collected and kept locally on the site.
This is some of what I was trying to do with my web site, but I never seem
to find time to work on it.
Probably the way to do it would be to publish a layout boilerplate, and then
have different people take different platforms and put together the info on
where to find the info. Then have other people look over that and see if
they know of additional info.
</disjointed ramblings>
Zane
On 3 Apr 2000, Eric Smith wrote:
What is needed s a clear concise floppy FAQ! It would put all this to bed
once and for all and insure the knowledgebase stays intact.
Allison
I've been wondering about this, actually. Wasn't there talk of putting a
FAQ together a couple of years ago? Was anything ever done on it?
I'd be happy to help compile/edit a faq for the list, if anyone else is
interested in tackling this.
It just seems that the same questions (and arguments) have been popping up
every few months for years. Anyone who's interested in doing this, go
ahead and email me privately.
Cheers,
Aaron
Given the
recent floppy thread what we need are summaries, not archives.
Since no one is going to write summaries, and even if someone did, they
probably wouldn't have enough detail to be good for searching, I have to
disagree. We do need archives. 
3:38 a.m.
I know that Kevan posted that he's working on
getting his archives back
up, but a question in the meantime...
I've been thinking of making a new archive of the
list available at
retrobytes.org (starting with this month); any comments/concerns/advice?
Well, why not.
I have all messages since June 1998 in a save mail folder,
so I'll do all search localy (And if I have some spare time
somebody should remember me to put the files to my Mac, so
I may use Sherlock for searching).
Do I have to get anyone's explicit permission to
do this?
If it's relevant, you got mine.
Lastly, assuming I go through with this, would people
prefer that I set
Mhonarc to obfuscate everyone's email addresses? The benefit, of course,
is that a spammer's address crawler couldn't pick up everyone's addresses
from the page like they do on newsgroups; the drawback is that people
wouldn't be able to directly contact the authors.
I don't care about this. Of course, SPAM rate did increase a bit
over the last two month, but it's still less than 1 per day not
covered by my filters.
To be honest, I don't like false (call as you like it, it's forgery
in my mind) mail addresses. It's just wrong in my opinion. And just
because some stupid marketing guys send out stuff to my addredd, I
will not spoof myself.
I have a mailbox at my house, and get an average of 3 advertisements
per day, and I'm included in the Robinson list and have a big (A6 size)
sticker saying 'Keine Werbung' (No Advertisement) at the mailbox -
should I now put up a false name tag ?
If the general feeling is that you'd rather the
addresses be hidden,
perhaps I could create two archives...one private for classiccmp list
members to search the archives *with* addresses, and one public with the
obfuscated addresses.
Why not, this may be a possible solution - is there a chance to
opt in for unchanged address on both archives ?
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
2:51 a.m.
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Hans Franke wrote:
Why not, this may be a possible solution - is there a
chance to
opt in for unchanged address on both archives ?
Do you mean changing/not changing addresses for individual messgage based
on sender? Not in my simple world. The Mhonarc email-->html software is
written in perl, so it'd be easy to implement special rules like
that...but it's more than I want to do right now (I have enough on my
plate).
The votes tallied so far would dictate that the addresses be obfuscated on
any public archive. I will seriously consider creating a public and
private archive, but I'm not sure how I'd create a user list for it. Maybe
something as simple as having an email-address as the access code and
searching for it in the archives.
Cheers,
Aaron
5:29 a.m.
> Why not, this may be a possible solution - is
there a chance to
> opt in for unchanged address on both archives ?
Do you mean changing/not changing addresses for
individual messgage based
on sender? Not in my simple world. The Mhonarc email-->html software is
written in perl, so it'd be easy to implement special rules like
that...but it's more than I want to do right now (I have enough on my
plate).
Well, I see your point. Maybe just keep my request in mind
if you ever may find spare time to add the functionality.
I'd realy apreciate this service.
Or another thing: maybe just copy only the real name part
into the archives and skip the address at all (remember
it's ["]name["] <address>) ? So you only need to come
up with generated names for users who don't use a name
part in the from header. Couldn't this be a solution ?
Address harvesters can't find usefull addresses, while,
as usual, the people show their face (name). Or is there
any reason to put up a mask ?
The votes tallied so far would dictate that the
addresses be obfuscated on
any public archive. I will seriously consider creating a public and
private archive, but I'm not sure how I'd create a user list for it. Maybe
something as simple as having an email-address as the access code and
searching for it in the archives.
You need to secure all pages, not only some start pages.
Links can spread fast, and soon some spider will follow
the trail.
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
3:45 a.m.
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Hans Franke wrote:
Or another thing: maybe just copy only the real name
part
into the archives and skip the address at all (remember
it's ["]name["] <address>) ? So you only need to come
up with generated names for users who don't use a name
part in the from header. Couldn't this be a solution ?
Address harvesters can't find usefull addresses, while,
as usual, the people show their face (name). Or is there
any reason to put up a mask ?
The default spammode would list a header as such:
To: classiccmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Mailing list archives? Questions...
From: "Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:39:09 +1
In-reply-to:
<Pine.LNX.4.04.10004021322380.21968-100000(a)is1.wfi-inc.com>
Organization: SIEMENS AG
Reply-To: classiccmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-classiccmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The individual still has his/her name attached, just no email address...
Aaron
6 a.m.
> Or another thing: maybe just copy only the real
name part
> into the archives and skip the address at all (remember
> it's ["]name["] <address>) ? So you only need to come
> up with generated names for users who don't use a name
> part in the from header. Couldn't this be a solution ?
> Address harvesters can't find usefull addresses, while,
> as usual, the people show their face (name). Or is there
> any reason to put up a mask ?
The default spammode would list a header as such:
To: classiccmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Mailing list archives? Questions...
From: "Hans Franke" <Hans.Franke@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:39:09 +1
In-reply-to:
<Pine.LNX.4.04.10004021322380.21968-100000(a)is1.wfi-inc.com>
Organization: SIEMENS AG
Reply-To: classiccmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-classiccmp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The individual still has his/her name attached, just
no email address...
Well, I'm still not a fan of it, but the solution is acceptable.
Thank you
Servus
Hans
--
VCF Europa am 29./30. April 2000 in Muenchen
http://www.vintage.org/vcfe
http://www.homecomputer.de/vcfe
8811
days inactive
8812
days old
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
af-list＠wfi-inc.com -
allisonp＠world.std.com -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
vaxman＠uswest.net