pshute at nuw.org.au
Thu Apr 17 08:41:06 CEST 2014
That sounds a bit like what yahoo and google groups do. If there's a web forum associated with the list then there'd be the option to simply not deliver to yahoo members, and they can just use the web interface.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 17 Apr 2014, at 1:39 pm, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> jason fb writes:
>> Isn't this DMARC issue a bellwether for the end of email lists as
>> we know them?
> Yes and no. Those who like mailing lists "as we know them" will
> continue to use them "that way", assuming that there's no active
> interference from the infrastructure itself. (This is supported by a
> mathematical theorem that I know to be true :-) but haven't actually
> succeeded in doing more than provide some persuasive examples yet.)
> It seems likely to me that Mailman itself will evolve in the direction
> of a multi-protocol distribution facility. What I mean by that is
> that at some point in the history of Mailman 3 you will be able to
> install a suite of applications that allow users to communicate with a
> "mailing list" via SMTP, NNTP, or HTTP. I don't know whether you
> consider that an "email list as we know them" or not. It's good
> enough for me, though.
> DMARC will still mean that you can't use your Yahoo! email as an
> author ID in such a system, though.
>> It seems to me that the means of production (the internet backbone,
>> the mail servers, etc) are now owned by Big Media (Comcast, Walt
>> Disney, CBS, Viacom, Time Warner) and it is in their interest to
>> make sure they can sell as much advertising as possible to the
> True. However, the backbone is constrained by U.S. law about common
> carriers. They *want* that protection, because otherwise they'd be
> liable for damages and criminal charges for pornography and terrorist
> communications. This doesn't prevent other countries or international
> gateways from operating by different rules, but as Larry Lessig
> pointed out, "Code Is Law". Somebody has to write that software that
> operates by different rules, and it *will* be buggy at gateways. That
> doesn't appeal to Big Media, because working around would require that
> "the sheep look up", and I doubt they want that.
> The "free email" service providers also have to worry about that
> because of the hysteria about spam and phishing. They could easily
> find themselves in a position where either they have to authenticate
> potential users the way banks do credit card applicants, or try to
> hide behind "common carrier" because anybody with an Internet
> connection can get a mailbox there.
>> People who operate Mailman servers (you guys) are just the little
>> guys who are helping people facilitate non-advertisable communication
>> between the masses.
> There's nothing "non-advertisable" about it (if you're serious about
> the "potential" semantics of "-able"). Putting an advertisement into
> list footers or headers is trivial, and doing Web-2.0-style dynamic
> ads is a SMOP. We just choose not to do so, but I would imagine there
> exist lists that do accept advertising revenue for use of their footers.
>> This seems like a poignant example of the fiction of the
>> distributed network. The last 15 years of the internet history
>> (indeed, the first 15 years of internet history) has been the story of
>> the consolidation of control into the hands of the few, not the open
>> and egalitarian peer-to-peer network utopia that the internet was
>> touted to be in populist culture.
> So much the worse for popular culture. Some form of consolidation of
> responsibility was inevitable due to economies of scale in provision
> of the backbone. Since things don't work very well if authority
> ("control") isn't commensurate with responsibility, consolidation of
> control is very hard to avoid. TANSTAAFL, you know.
> The Internet was never egalitarian. It always required enough
> expertise to make you a stranger in a strange land (damn, the science
> fiction ObRefs just don't stop coming!) Anybody who thought otherwise
> can hardly be accused of actually thinking about the issue.
> And "egalitarian peer-to-peer" is almost an oxymoron. People aren't
> peer-to-peer in any egalitarian sense: their social networks are
> hardly uniform. Phenomena like Facebook ("social netword
> aggregators") were inevitable, and they have strong economies of scale
> So the bottom line is that this doesn't really bother me, I don't
> think that (at this point) the potential abuse by the powerful has
> really achieved 1984 or Brave New World levels, due to internal checks
> and balances of the system as it exists. And Mailman still has a
> lifespan more limited by our ability to adapt to new technology than
> by the society around us IMO.
> Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users at python.org
> Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3
> Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/pshute%40nuw.org.au
More information about the Mailman-Users