[Mailman-Users] GMane?

John A. Martin jam at jamux.com
Fri Feb 17 07:34:14 CET 2006


>>>>> "sjt" == Stephen J Turnbull
>>>>> "Re: [Mailman-Users] GMane?"
>>>>>  Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:56:46 +0900

>>>>> "jam" == John A Martin <jam at jamux.com> writes:

    sjt> I missed at least one of your posts, receiving Brad's reply
    sjt> to it almost 24 hours in advance of your post.  Even today
    sjt> this is common for netnews.

Sorry, Gmane is not netnews.  Gmane is not Usenet.

The Mailman-* lists were removed from Gmane at least two days before I
sent anything (recently) to this list.  By what mechanism do you
suppose Gmane could have caused mail to be delayed or received out of
order after the list was removed?

JFTR after the first two mails I sent this list Wednesday,

	To: mailman-users at python.org
	References: <43F33D7E.1070805 at mcswartz.org>
	Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:24:33 -0500
	Message-ID: <87psloy4hq.fsf at athene.jamux.com>
	
	To: Brad Knowles <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>
	Cc: John Swartzentruber <johnslists at mcswartz.org>,
                mailman-users at python.org 
	References: <43F33D7E.1070805 at mcswartz.org>
		<p06200719c019133b6002@[10.0.1.210]>
	Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:46:23 -0500
	In-Reply-To: <p06200719c019133b6002@[10.0.1.210]>
                (Brad Knowles's message of 
		"Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:21:08 +0100")
	Message-ID: <87fymky0pc.fsf at athene.jamux.com>

did not appear on the list for some time, I poked around saved monthly
reminders and realized that I was subscribed to this list with an
address at which I currently receive mail but at which I have not sent
mail for some time.  I changed my subscription on the list web
interface and eventually received the mail confirmation request and
did the confirmation on the web interface.

Using my newly subscribed sending address I resent the first mail
indicated above which carried the following pertinent header fields to
the list.

	Delivered-To: mailman-users at bag.python.org
	Received: from bag.python.org (bag [127.0.0.1])
		by bag.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893591E400A
		for <mailman-users at python.org>;
                Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:51:15 +0100 (CET) 
	Resent-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:51:11 -0500
	Resent-Message-ID: <87irrgutgg.fsf at athene.jamux.com>
	From: "John A. Martin" <jam at jamux.com>
	To: mailman-users at python.org
	References: <43F33D7E.1070805 at mcswartz.org>
	Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:24:33 -0500
	In-Reply-To: <43F33D7E.1070805 at mcswartz.org>
                (John Swartzentruber's message of 
		"Wed, 15 Feb 2006 09:41:02 -0500")
	Message-ID: <87psloy4hq.fsf at athene.jamux.com>

Not wishing to annoy Brad Knowles or John Swartzentruber with
additional copies of my second mail to the list I made a new mail (new
Message-ID (and new PGP signature)) with a single Header-Recipient and
the same Header-Date and the same content as the mail I had sent about
five hours and 10 minutes earlier.

	Delivered-To: mailman-users at bag.python.org
	Received: from bag.python.org (bag [127.0.0.1])
		by bag.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7171E4024
		for <mailman-users at python.org>;
                Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:56:37 +0100 (CET) 
	Received: from athene.jamux.com (athene.jamux.com [65.222.215.34])
		by bag.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
		for <mailman-users at python.org>;
                Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:56:36 +0100 (CET) 
	Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
		by athene.jamux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027472F445
		for <mailman-users at python.org>;
                Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:56:36 -0500 (EST) 
	From: "John A. Martin" <jam at jamux.com>
	To: mailman-users at python.org
	In-Reply-To: <p06200719c019133b6002@[10.0.1.210]>
                (Brad Knowles's message of 
		"Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:21:08 +0100")
	Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:46:23 -0500
	References: <43F33D7E.1070805 at mcswartz.org>
		<p06200719c019133b6002@[10.0.1.210]>
	Message-ID: <87d5hout7p.fsf at athene.jamux.com>

The above are I believe the most pertinent header fields but I expect
that any subscriber to this list can see the full header if they wish.

I expect also that anybody who cares to look will see that Brad's
response to my Message-ID: <87fymky0pc.fsf at athene.jamux.com>, (not a
response to my <87d5hout7p.fsf at athene.jamux.com>) was received by
bag.python.org at Feb 2006 18:58:30 +0100 (CET) which, by my
calculation is about two minutes shy of being five hours ahead of when
my Message-ID:<87d5hout7p.fsf at athene.jamux.com> was received.

	Delivered-To: mailman-users at bag.python.org
	Received: from bag.python.org (bag [127.0.0.1])
		by bag.python.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85D4C1E4007
		for <mailman-users at python.org>;
                Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:58:30 +0100 (CET) 
	Message-Id: <p0620071dc0191b764dc8@[10.0.1.210]>
	In-Reply-To: <87fymky0pc.fsf at athene.jamux.com>
	References: <43F33D7E.1070805 at mcswartz.org>
		<p06200719c019133b6002@[10.0.1.210]>
		<87fymky0pc.fsf at athene.jamux.com>
	Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:57:24 +0100
	To: "John A. Martin" <jam at jamux.com>
	From: Brad Knowles <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>
	Cc: Brad Knowles <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org>,
                mailman-users at python.org,
	        John Swartzentruber <johnslists at mcswartz.org>

It looks to me as if my clumsiness coming out of long lurking accounts
for about 5 hours in the delay of almost 24 hours that you observe
between receipt of Brad's answer and my question.  (Extreme Top
Posting? :))

I am at a loss however to understand any of this being attributable to
or in any way related to netnews or to Gmane.  Perhaps you would be
kind enough to show the evidence upon which you base this connection?

Hmm... maybe we have stumbled upon a new watch-word: "When in doubt,
Blame Gmane".  Has a nice ring to it, no?

    sjt> Gmane started its service for no apparent reason without
    sjt> notifying anyone,

Lars should have consulted you in 2002 before offering a mailing list
archive to The Net, right?

    sjt> they stopped it for no apparent reason

?!?

You mean Gmane stopped carrying the mailman-* lists?

Lars said, "The mailman people requested that they be removed", see
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.discuss/9291>.

    sjt> without notifying anyone.

See <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.discuss/9293>.  Perhaps this is
not an everyday occurrence?

    sjt> They have a history of being an attractive nuisance
    sjt> (publishing email addresses and other spam-facilitating
    sjt> activities).  It's fundamentally irresponsible, but that is
    sjt> the way they operate.

Did you have a similar view of Altavista ten years or so ago?

List owners (or more accurately, whoever subscribes a list to Gmane)
have a number of choices (Posting allowed, Read only, List member only
posting, No posting through Gmane, Encrypt addresses, Spam tagging,
and more).  ISTM choosing the appropriate posting option and encrypted
address would go a long way toward reducing the nuisances.

Gmane is a Free Public Service.  Like the man said, "If it cannot be
abused, it is not free".  Such is the world.

Blame Gmane because bad people use it. :)

    sjt> although I don't use Gmane and consider their operation to be
    sjt> irresponsible, I'm moderately in favor of allowing them to
    sjt> gateway the Mailman lists for the convenience it apparently
    sjt> affords many users.

Good.

I have suggested to list owners that sooner or later someone will
likely subscribe their list to Gmane.  This is because it is there and
there are folks that like to use it.  To make the best of it I suggest
that list owners might want to subscribe their lists themselves and
perhaps get a better place (name) in the Gmane hierarchy but, most
importantly, so they can choose the options themselves.  Also they can
more easily copy old archives to Gmane.

    sjt> the Mailman list admins should be free not to use Gmane, or
    sjt> to require Gmane improvements as a condition of using Gmane,

It is not as if Lars or his minions are trying to persuade anyone in
particular to subscribe a particular list.  List subscribers are
likely sooner or later to try to subscribe a list, or persuade a list
owner to do so, unless steps are taken to prevent it.

    sjt> The fact that Gmane *re*subscribed to Mailman lists in
    sjt> violation of both their own policy and a previous request to
    sjt> cease and desist speaks volumes for the risks and their lack
    sjt> of respect for others' privacy, IMHO.

Do you really think anyone at Gmane subscribed the mailman-* lists?
Don't you imagine that someone, probably a subscriber, subscribed the
list?

Lars said he had made a mistake.  See
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.discuss/9291>.

        jam

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 154 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/attachments/20060217/3cfa34c2/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Mailman-Users mailing list