On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 08:44:43PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 06/27/2010 11:11 PM, Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > > There's a compromise: revise the declassification rules to help automation. > > Writing a perl script to filter msgs based on threading and well-defined > > declassification headers shouldn't be that much of work. I've actually started on something like that. It basically finds the threads of a mbox file, drops anything with [VAC] in the subject or from a list of email addresses from people who 'never ever ever want their emails released'. it then finds anything with those as reference etc. It will probably have to be a two-pass thing as you cannot guarantee that emails are in the right order in the file.
So the list will be for the people that think private means private always. Unfortunately a side-effect of that means any subsequent email in the thread will not be released, past the one that was blocked. > I wouldn't mind to add something like > X-Declassify-after: 3y > header to my mails to -private. I suspect the declassification will be done once per month. So it is really a yes or no thing. A meta-header is certainly a great idea, for both yes and no. > Based on threading it is hard to decide is something should be declassified as > in some threads only a few mails include sensitive content, like citations of > other persons which are supposed to stay private forever. I was going to err on the side of caution. If someone in a thread says its private then it is and anything past that mail is too, even if there is none of the original email in it. The problem is you can never be sure. Say I quote Bernd correctly, but miss the quote of Serafiem, or at least the ....wrote: line then you someone could think it's all Bernds words. If Bernd doesn't mind his emails being declassified but Serefiem does, we've got a problem. > Also I think some people expressed their wish that *all* of their mails should > stay private forever (I'd have to search the archive for that, but I think > that Yes, it will certainly cater for that. It's no point saying 'all my emails', you'd have to specify email addresses. If you miss an email address it doesnt get released, you just get a reminder. > And finally I think we should release Squeeze first before doing any work on > this, a (good) release is much more important than bringing the muddy fights > of I'm working on some of the infrastructure. It's not actually detracting from my Debian work. In fact even post-processing I imagine the emails won't hit the website. They'll probably sit in a mbox folder somewhere for people to check. - Craig -- Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5 http://www.enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au http://www.debian.org/ Debian GNU/Linux, software should be Free -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100702033229.ga22...@enc.com.au
