Re: request
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Sergio Brandano wrote:
> Let all try to be patient and work out the problem.
Indeed. In fact, I believe the problem is worked out - there is no
problem, nothing needs to be done. However, we are enjoying the patient
discussion of somewhat esoteric and theoretical topics.
> There is a difference between a mailing-list and a news-group;
> a world difference, quite literally.
There is a slight difference, but it's mostly a technical one. Posting to
a public mailing list (as opposed to a list alias that you maintain in
your MUA) is remarkably similar to posting to usenet.
In fact, many mailing lists are gatewayed to newsgroups. If I were to
tell you that some servers have newsgroup views of this list, would it
change your position?
> When posting to a news-group, you make a copy of a "file" into your
> local news-server, which then mirrors the "file" into all
> news-servers world wide; the reader of your "file" may then be any
> person, at any time, when reading from his/her local news-server.
Sure, and when sending to a public list, the "file" is sent to your local
mailserver, then mirrored into the list mailserver, and from there to
hundreds or thousands of servers throughout the world. It may be read at
any time by a user from his local mailserver, or from any public archive.
> When posting to a mailing-list, you send your "mail" to a restricted
> number of persons, namely all and only those persons who are
> subscribed at that very moment, possibly including additional
> receivers (still being physical persons) whose address has been
> explicitly included;
This seems to be your confusion. There is no requirement that a mail
recipient be a physical person. It could be an archiver, news gateway,
forwarding service, or just about anything.
> the reader of your "mail" may then be any person
> who has received your "mail" in his/her mailbox.
Or has access to any server or archiver that carries the message.
> You do not receive
> all the past mail when you subscribe, nor you receive all the future
> mail if you unsubscribe.
Much like Usenet, where you don't get articles sent (much) before you
subscribe, nor after you unsubscribe.
> By publishing your "mail" on the Internet, Debian is allowing the
> world at large to read your "mail" at any time, there including
> persons who were not subscribed to the mailing-list at the time when
> you sent your "mail".
By sending your mail to a public list, you allow every human being who
cares about that topic to read it. Some join the list, some read the
archives. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHO YOUR MAIL MIGHT GO TO. Any human
being and many software constructs are allowed to listen to the list. To
keep it from a subset of people, do not send to a public list.
> When you subscribe to a mailing-list, you are just doing this. You
> are *not* signing an agreement for which every "mail" you send to
> that list is also published, for the world at large to read at any
> time; you are *just* signing an agreement for which you are entitled
> to (1) receive the mail posted by others on that list, and to (2)
> post your mail to that list, until you unsubscribe. Period.
What? Subscribing is irrelevant, as previously mentioned. It's posting
to a public mailing list that is at issue. Posting to a public list means
that you intend to make your message public. If that's not what you want,
do not use public lists.
> It is a plain matter of knowing what is what here.
This, I completely agree with.
> If you post to a
> mailing-list, you are *not* publishing. If you post to a news-group
> you are indeed publishing.
This distinction exists only in your mind. Usenet and public mailing
lists are indistinguishable except by the protocol they arrive on my
server, and even then it's blurry. I use the same machine to handle them,
and I use the same client program to read them. I can imagine people who
read this message and do not know how I sent it.
> although the publication is not
> authoritative (i.e. citing is not reliable, as the source of the
> cited document may disappear/be erased for good, and there is no
> certainty that the author is *really* the author).
This is true with print media too, but irrelevant to the topic.
> If Debian is
> archiving and indexing your mail on the Internet, then Debian is
> publishing your mail;
Wait - Didn't you just say it WASN'T publishing? Now you've confused me.
> At the time of writing, Debian is publishing the content of all its
> mailing-lists *without* the authors' explicit consent. This consent
> in fact, *can not* be implicit as some of you has claimed.
I disagree.
> You may then say that it is
> because Debian's mailing-lists are public, and there we go again,
> and again, and again, in this infinite verbal loop.)
Indeed. I'm glad you recognize the verbal loop, and the fact that the
definition of public vs private communication is the sticking point.
Since the disagreement is one of definition, there are really only a few
ways to resolve it:
1) one side or the other can agree to change it's definition voluntarily.
I'm not going to - debian mailing lists are public. Feel free to agree
with me, though.
2) an "agreement" can be imposed from the outside. I really hope you
don't feel vindictive enough to try to sue someone over this, but nobody
can stop you trying.
3) Accept the status quo without agreeing in principal. This would be my
hope if you cannot do #1. I recommend you avoid sending
messages to public lists in the future until the matter is resolved to
your liking.
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
Reply to: