Phil Pennock wrote:
> On 2002-04-24 at 09:45 +0100, Chris Bayliss wrote:
> > Removing the posts in question would be a simple solution, but does
> > raise other problems. For example other people's replies
> or responses
> > could become misrepresented as they become out of context. Perhaps
> > simply editing out the identity of the person in question
> replacing it
> > with a string indicating that the identity has been removed may
> > suffice?
>
> Actually, this one argument doesn't hold much water.
>
> You can post with "X-No-Archive: yes" as a header, and your
> mails won't
> be archived in Nigel's official main archive. This has _always_ been
> the case. Anyone who didn't want their mails archived should
> have been
> using it, generally. Some archives don't support this header, but the
> official one does.
So what happened to replies to your posts? If they quoted your post but
they didn't have the X-No-Archive header set then surely your post would
be visiblein the archives (albeit not directly from you)?
If that is the case then I would have thought stripping/masking the
name/address would be sufficient.
I for one would not want to see the removal of archives from the web. A
few days ago I posted a question and Philip (Hazel) congratulated me on
posting -d9 output without having to be asked. The reason I posted the
-d9 was because I had trawled the archives looking for questions similar
to mine. I noticed how often people asked for -d9 output so I decided to
see if it revealed anything to me in this case.
The archives are a valuable resource and perhaps Nigel should get us all
to resubscribe so that we can affirm we have no objection to our posts
being in them.
Cheers
Ryan Cartwright - IT Manager
ryan@???
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact a Family -
http://www.cafamily.org.uk
Helping families who care for children with any disability or special
need
