From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 7 11:06:15 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B1816A4CE for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:06:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD13943D39 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:06:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kjelderg@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id z35so701308rne for ; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:06:13 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=WnXlRVT4RNqJ+L6t+L8hEkpi2ipIEPYM0pAN028Fw2y31FcW+PvmwldiWEUKJcqR6C2NgP2uWDEzOBQxk4AnDJaKiUFBnE8zB0NDQi+XH5UCNrxp7AkvL9dDWfvMzlR8j7ZEDCAHC/WSA+K2IQAlNxmK/woTqPGmpUIe7dhhbkM= Received: by 10.39.3.39 with SMTP id f39mr122293rni; Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:06:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.101.19 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Feb 2005 03:06:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 05:06:13 -0600 From: Eric Kjeldergaard To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable References: <200502061420.24415.krinklyfig@spymac.com> cc: atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr Subject: Re: favor X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eric Kjeldergaard List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:16 -0000 After having read this thread (yes, every line of it...) I'm really quite interested in it. Unfortunately, an analogy dropped off perhaps below Se=F1or Atkielski's radar so I thought I would recreate it and hear his (and of course everyone else's) opinion(s) on it. Let us make an analogue betwixt our Valerie and one who submits to the local newspaper. There is a roughly equal level of consent given in both cases, and the mailing list (newspaper company) is understood to be able to reproduce this to all subscribers. Further, the mail (newspaper) is archived in both cases by the mailing list authority (newspaper company) and third parties (mirrors of mailing lists, other mailing list archives, libraries, etc.) all of which are generally available for viewing by the public. So this request would be likened unto our Valerie writing to the newspaper company and asking that any and all copies of the paper which her submission was quoted in be burnt/destroyed/what have you.=20 The newspaper company certainly has legal right to destroy their archived copies and may choose to do so, though I doubt the newspaper agency is legally bound to do that. Would this not be a reasonable analogy (if we throw out the fact that the newspaper companies are generally capitalist entities since it has little bearing here)? Certainly the newspaper didn't require a contract to be signed by its submitters before distributing publicly their submissions. I don't see that a mailing list would need such a thing. The submissions are given under the understanding that they shall be publicly available both to subscribers and non subscribers in their favourite restaurants and libraries. --=20 If I write a signature, my emails will appear more personalised.