On 14/03/15 19:21, Grampa Renato, GB wrote: > European laws should protect me from the spread of my emails, differently > from US.
That might help with archives in Europe, or organizations who have a presence in Europe, and archives outside of Europe. It won't help with archives outside of Europe, run by organizations with no presence within Europe. > Clearly I submitted my message in good faith to the recipient assuming that > it remained a bilateral correspondence only. At this point, it is blatantly obvious that you had no idea who, or what you were sending the message to. It is equally obvious that you still have no idea what you are sending your messages to --- a mailing list --- and who those recipients are --- people and organizations that are scattered across the globe. At least one list-remailer is, or at least used to be subscribed to this list, so a comprehensive list of who has, in theory, if not in practice, a copy of your messages is going to be fairly difficult to determine. Some people are emailing you directly, because they figured that you were not subscribed to the mailing list. Other people have not emailed you directly, because they thought/assumed you were subscribed to the mailing list. Regardless, that doesn't change the basic equation, which is that email sent to a list, goes to _everybody_ that is subscribed to the list. That includes bots that automatically archive the list messages, and the bots that automatically forward messages to their list subscribers, and the bots that automatically configure the messages for a new-reader, and the other bots that do other probably unexpected, and unanticipated things with email. (I don't think that any of the MailingList2Twitter bots have found this mailing list, _yet_. The operative word is "yet".) (A couple of months ago, I read about an outfit that was trying to integrate mailing-list, web-forum, and all of the various social media networks into one setting, and have every message that originated in one, to be blasted to the others, as fully threaded conversations.) > I haven't seen indications that the message would have been disseminated to > the World in this way, That is the way mailing lists work. Send to one address, and the software there sends it to all the list subscribers. Humans step in, only to "fix" something, if the software can't automatically send the email to list subscribers. Usually, but not always, that "fix" is to approve an email --- make sure that it is not spam. Sometimes, but not always, the human looks at the content, to ensure that the subject matter is related to the focus of the list. > despite the confidentiality note. The "confidentiality boilerplate" is meaningless jargon. E-mail is the functional equivalent of sending a post card through the post office. > Nevertheless there must be a tool to discriminate emails from making them > public when inappropriate, like in this case. Just how is anybody supposed to know that it is inappropriate to distribute an email submitted to a public list, when the content of the message is congruent with the focus of the list? > Thank you for any other suggestion you could provide Are you familiar with _The Streisand Effect_? If not, I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with it. I currently see four messages from you, this month. All of those will be archived by the same outfits that archived the one you are requesting removal of. jonathon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
