Re: List Review options - privacy question

["John M" <***>]

Tim, I am the devil's complexiologist advocate.

It does not take too much effort - if I advise the spammer, -
to join the list (it is free) and in this case
the #2 version is equal to the #3 publicity.
Beautiful and a lot of spam-mail for the listmembers.

Keep the lister-names to yourself and it is at your
discretion to e-mail it to any reputable asker.

Best
John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:37 PM
Subject: List Review options - privacy question


> To all,
>
> Currently, the list is set so that only the 'list owner' can see who is
> subscribed to the list.  The choices for options are: 1) listowner only,
2)
> subscribers only, or 3) anyone. Option 3 is not recommended by the list
> software company since it can be used by spammers looking to scoop up
> addresses.
>
> However, I could change it to option 2, so that any subscriber can see the
> names of who is currently subscribed, along with their email addresses.
> Sometimes it is useful to be able to do this simply to see the status of
the
> subscriber list, or sometimes if you want to send another subscriber a
> private email but do not have their address at hand. Also, anytime you
post,
> your email shows up anyway, so it is only hard-core lurkers who will find
> themselves being "revealed".
>
> So, I wanted to find out: does anyone had any strong objections to
changing
> this setting to #2?
>
> You can reply on the list or privately to *** . If no one
> objects by tomorrow, then I will change the option.
>
> Also, in regards to privacy, I just wanted to note that the archives are
> already set to "public", which means anyone can view them, and they may
also
> possibly get scanned by search engines.
>
> FYI: To get a list of all the commands you can send to the listserver,
send
> an email to "***" with either the text "help"
(for
> a short reply) OR "info refcard" (for a complete command reference) in the
> *body* of the email.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim