On 1/11/25 12:46, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 2025-01-11 at 12:44 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 1/11/25 12:42, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Fri, 2025-01-10 at 00:47 +0000, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >>>> Gratuitous: I received a copy of this message with only four ">" >>>> characters (the relevant portion is quoted above), so it is at least >>>> possible for me to tell that the original had a line starting with >>>> "From ". There are indeed five in the mail-archive.com copy of the >>>> message, though. >>>> >>>> I am now wondering whether intentionally crafting a message to look >>>> different to different recipients means that you have not successfully >>>> sent it via the fora. That opens up the possibility that maybe zero >>>> spendies were transferred. >>> Further considerations: Could someone be considered to have "ensure[d] e >>> can receive messages" by resolving to check some set of archives (e.g. >>> the private mailman archives; mail-archive.com)? >>> >>> If so, does any inaccuracy in those archives (e.g. mail-archive.com >>> omitting some monthly reports, like the FLR, for reasons of filesize) >>> render those messages non-public? >> >> I believe we've held that a message does not have to be received by >> every single person subscribed to the forum to have been sent "via" a forum. >> > Does that mean the answer would change if there were some number of > people who regularly check public archives, who greatly outnumber the > people subscribed to receive email from the mailing list in the normal > way? > > I don't think that is likely, but I also don't think we can ever > conclusively disprove it. > > ~qenya
Hmm. I think I'd argue that, regardless, people who are doing that are not truly subscribed to the forum. For instance, if mail-archive went down but the lists themselves stayed up, I don't think we'd accept that the lists have ceased to be a forum or that they couldn't send messages. The "ensure e can receive messages" bit is only a "should", not the definition of what a public message is. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
