[meta-sig] Switchover to mailman
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:51:48 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Markus Fleck wrote:
> Greg Stein (Exchange) wrote:
> > Also, why just list it in plain text? Let's just go ahead and create
> > mailto: links. That will be very handy.
> I still cannot see *any* reason why the list of subscribers
> should be available on the web *at all*. Could anybody give
> me just *one* reasonable example scenario of why if might be
> useful to have subscriber addresses on the web?
I have to say, there are several ways that i see the visibility being
1) So list members can get a sense of who they're talking to when they
2) As a point of reference when seeking the address of a person that you
know is involved in the subject.
3) To get a sense of the overall attention the list topic has. (The
numbers of subscribers displayed even in privacy mode is probably
sufficient for this purpose.)
The thing i'm weighing here is usefulness of the feature - i think those
things above are significant for building a community, as well as for
individual purposes - versus potential nuisance. It does seem to me
that the *option* to inhibit visibility should be enough for people that
object to having their names spider-visible. This would suggest that
it's ok to make visibility the default setting, but do a bit more to
point out the visibility, and how to change it, in the list welcome
messages, for those that would be concerned. However, i could be
convinced that the visibility is just too open, somehow. I think this
discussion is helpful - but i certainly think there are valid reasons
for having the list membership available, the question is how available.
Ken Manheimer firstname.lastname@example.org 703 620-8990 x268
(orporation for National Research |nitiatives
# If you appreciate Python, consider joining the PSA! #
# <http://www.python.org/psa/>. #