Subject: Archive mangling of record traffic...

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:22:03 -0800 (PST)

While reading a comment of Charles', I saw:

>The case we were considering was where we might put, in Injection-Info:

>... mail-complaints-to="abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
>    mail-complaints-to="abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";

and I wondered why there was all this fuss about two of the same thing
appearing twiceas a parameter in a header. Perhaps there are differing
numbers of x's? Perhaps one 'x' isn't an 'x', it's something that only
looks like an 'x'?

No, it is another example of the archive of this group mangling the body
of a message to make its meaning absolutely opaque. Don't we have enough
opaque content without the archive helping us?

[email-masked]?
[email-masked]?

And wouldn't all you archive lurkers love to know what I just said?

---

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 07:48:30 -0500

> >    mail-complaints-to="abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";

Obviously you're looking at the web interface, not at actual mailing
list messages.

[...]
> opaque content without the archive helping us?

You're not looking at "the archive"; you're looking at a bunch of HTML
that bears a superficial resemblance to some fraction of an archive
message.  If you want "the archive", I suspect that you may find a
link to one on the IMC site (I'm offline at the moment, so can't be
more specific), however that's likely to be mangled as well, though
in less severe ways (beware mangled Date fields).
 
> [email-masked]?

Now why on Earth would somebody who refuses to accept mail
want working mailto URIs ;/? 

> And wouldn't all you archive lurkers love to know what I just said?

It's almost certainly *in* the *archive*.

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 20:39:20 GMT

>>    mail-complaints-to="abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";

Well that is not, of course, what I wrote.

>opaque content without the archive helping us?

Indeed. I am not at all satisfied with the archiving arrangements at
imc.org. The way things were archived at Landfield were much better (when
they worked, that is :-( ).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 02:22:54 +0100

> Well that is not, of course, what I wrote.

Web interfaces to archives of mailing lists _always_ munge
anything with an "@" in it, this is just the 3rd millenium.

> The way things were archived at Landfield were much better
> (when they worked, that is :-( ).

Maybe you like the GMaNe interfaces, it has even a "blog style",
RDF news, search, NNTP, and other features.  It allows no write
access with bogus addresses for obvious reasons.  Examples:

<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format/27911>
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.usenet.format/27911/raw>
<http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.ietf.usenet.format/thread=27911>

                       Bye, Frank