On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 09:05 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> It makes debugging pretty much harder. In the referenced message, I
> have created a mail address especially to help other people testing
> exim. By "protecting" this address, the debugging possibility is
> destroyed.
Is debugging of problems in the archives really an issue?
In general we ask people to provide real, rather than modified, examples
when they have a problem they wish us to fix. However that debugging
tends to be carried out when the issue is still hot and participants are
getting the (unobscured) emails directly sent to them. Those looking in
later tend not to be interested in the exact details - and if it is a
common problem then it should be added to the FAQ.
For many of the debugging type queries done on the list I feel that the
archives probably do not add anything.
> Ok, then please have the no-obfuscating rule removed from the mailing
> list conduct advice.
The 2 are not necessarily contradictory.
One things to be noted with regard to the web archives, which are open
access, is that I want to avoid giving myself, or the folks at
Cambridge, extra work. So as well as complying with the regulations
(and unfortunately I need to look at the new data retention stuff soon -
ideally to see if not logging at all is an option), I want to reduce the
barest minimum any queries that come my way. Removing specific material
from the archives is a complete PITA, and responding to queries
regarding material in the archives (even if the response is a "go away")
is also a pain. I have had complaints about addresses that are in clear
in archived material.
I'm mostly on vacation this week (including today, actually), so will
not respond in any timely fashion.
Nigel.
--
[ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@??? ]
[ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
