[Righetti72] Address Munging (fwd)

[Bill Tanner]

I'm not sure I'm ready to take the next step and make the list anonymous.  If
the purpose of the list is to keep classmates connected, why would we want
identities to be masked?  Wouldn't masking identity be inconsistent with
keeping a list of e-mail addresses on the site?

I'll admit that the privacy issue concerns me.  I'm uncomfortable posting
"quasi" personal infomation like e-mail addresses without a postive "opt-in"
but, at the same time, I know that an "opt-in" process is likely to have a
dramatic negative effect on participation.

If we go anonymous for the list, I think we need to go anonymous for the site
and drop having an e-mail list.  One idea would be to give everyone a
righetti72.com e-mail address that forwards to their real address.  That would
hide real addresses unless they choose to disclose it in a reply.  It's a bit
more work (have to create the accounts and set the forwarding information) but
doesn't appear unreasonable.  Would that give us the best of both worlds?

Regards, Bill

On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:15:06 -0500 Bill Tanner <btanner@mindspring.com> wrote:

> I changed the configuration so that replies go
> to the list.  Thanks for
> sparing me the rebuttal to the author's
> specious arguments (although I do love
> a good argument).
> 
> Regards, Bill
> 
> -------- Forwarded message --------
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:03:21 -0600
> From: btanner@mindspring.com
> Reply-to: Valerie Coss 
> To: Bill Tanner 
> Subject: Re: [Righetti72] Address Munging
>  
> I have to say I come down on this side of the
> argument; to which I also add
> that this arrangement conceals the poster's
> personal address from the other
> list members. Hitting reply sends to the list
> and only the list and you
> don't see the sender's personal address. Some
> people care about that ...
> 
> Furthermore, it prevents whole sections of
> threads being missing because
> they went privately. If all replies must go to
> the list, then there will be
> no missing parts. I belong to one list that
> works in this manner. I have
> never inadvertently sent a private message out
> to the whole list in 7 years
> of participating in 9-10 lists.
> 
> And this is from your article with the "con"
> position: "Unless you can
> articulate a clear reason for munging and
> understand the full consequences
> of the action, you should not do it." Well, I
> can articulate two clear
> reasons: privacy for posters and forcing all
> posts to go the the list, and I
> will assume that you understand the results of
> "munging" ...
> 
> And his main reason for saying it is harmful is
> that it "destroys the
> "reply-to-author" capability".  One could
> conceivably argue just the
> opposite -- it is a positive attribute because
> it protects the privacy of
> the author ... I could go on because his
> article is filled with a number of
> specious arguments but I will spare you that.
> Val
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Tanner" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 2:42 PM
> Subject: [Righetti72] Address Munging
> 
> 
> > Here's a counter argument.  Looks like the
> classic choice between two bad
> > alternatives.
> >
> >
> http://www.metasystema.org/essays/reply-to-useful.mhtml
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > Everyone mailing list
> > Everyone@righetti72.com
> >
> http://righetti72.com/mailman/listinfo/everyone_righetti72.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Everyone mailing list
> Everyone@righetti72.com
> http://righetti72.com/mailman/listinfo/everyone_righetti72.com
> 
>