On 2/20/02 2:13 PM, "John W Baxter" email@example.com wrote:
That context may not match the context of other list operators, who may feel that the subscribers are out in the main stacks somewhere. Or in a drawer in the librarian's desk for "suitable" review.
Both true, but I have two points to carry this further.
security, so if people want to be looser, fine. It's easier to loosen the reins than expect JrandomeUser to implement extra features on an ad hoc basis. I also think a tool like Mailman ought to try to set a "best practices" model for how it operates. Mailman should set the standard for how we think mail lists ought to be run, not be the least common denominator that everyone has to hack extras into to make it fit their needs.
they disclose them, so users can make informed choices. That includes, frankly, letting users know their addresses are potentially exposed to spammers, so if a user is sensitive to this, they can choose to not subscribe, or to leave the list.
I'm not telling admins what their policies need to be, but I do think Mailman needs to understand it's role as a "best practices" tool -- and I do feel strongly that whatever an admin does, they do so in a mode that involves informed consent with their users.