Re: [Pan-users] Re: Custom headers in 0.95?

[Brian Morrison]

Duncan wrote:
> Brian Morrison posted <address@hidden>, excerpted below, 
> on Fri, 05 May 2006 12:33:06 +0100:
> 
>> Travis wrote:
>>> More often than not the "X-No-Archive:  Yes" is not recognized and is a
>>> waste of time.
>>>
>> I've always found it reliable when placed in the headers, a Google Groups
>> search finds few posts from me. I don't trust Google's desire to have
>> indexed everything, and I keep remembering Dr Fun's "Ghost of Usenet
>> Postings Past".
> 
> See, I've never had a problem with the idea of posts with my name attached
> being archived.  I am willing to take 100% responsibility for them, or I
> wouldn't have posted them in a public forum with my name attached.  Even
> where my views have changed over the years, what I posted is what I
> believed then, and I'm both willing to take responsibility for it and
> explain how and why my views have changed.  (An example might be some of
> the stuff posted under address@hidden, in the MSIE and OE groups,
> back some years ago.  I'm even pointing it out, tho my views have changed
> somewhat.)
> 
> As for the possibility of not getting a job (or whatever) due to such
> postings being connected with my name, that doesn't bother me either.  If
> the potential employer is unwilling to hire me after seeing what I'm
> willing to publicly speak up for, then I'm better off not working for them
> in any case.  I'll be happier working elsewhere, thank-you-very-much.
> 
> In the event that I wanted to post something I did /not/ want connected to
> my name, it's not difficult to arrange that, at least at the casual
> non-attribution level, as all it takes is an NSP that doesn't put
> nntp-posting-host or the like in the headers, and a munged from header. 
> Of course, that's traceable with legal subpoena power and appropriate
> logging orders, but avoiding that is possible as well, altho considerably
> more complex (involving multiple anon remailers and a mail2news gateway,
> and/or multiple onion routers such as TOR).  
> 

You get me wrong Duncan, what I object to is *Google* claiming the right
to the contents of Google Groups (they want to own the world right?) and
if my stuff were in there I'd be very unhappy. I try my best to keep it
out for that reason, I have no problems with standing by what I post and
I *always* post as me.

-- 

Brian Morrison

address@hidden