Hi David,
* In may, Tim Hayes asked you (David Sugar) to remove some parts of a message sent to the GNU Bayonne public mailing-list in February <http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bayonne-devel/2003-02/msg00001.html>. Tim Hayes is unhappy because in the mail he sent by himself show up the following line: "From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]" It looks like an header line but it's not, it's included in the message content. We do not show full headers at mail.gnu.org or mail.nongnu.org. When looking for veebox via google, the message can be found. That the problem for Tim Hayes. * In may, you forwarded this removal request to the public mailing-list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in this mail <http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2003-05/msg00099.html>. * I replied: "1) We have to make sure that automated tools do not provide confidential information, as revealing some mail headers. We cannot spend time to edit archives when someone provided information he does not want to provide at first by himself. And I do not think someone should accept to handle this request until he promises he will handle any more request of this kind in the future. 2) This issue seems irrelevant to me. I believe that no one at savannah-hackers have time to check every confusion google (and any other search tools) can creates. I absolutely do not understand how it can be a serious threat to this veebox.co.uk company, I do not understand how it can cause "a lot of confusion and complaints". Google found 8 entries for veebox. The mailman archive is the third one. If veebox.co.uk is not happy with it, veebox.co.uk have to browse http://www.google.com/intl/en/ to understand how google works. There's only 3 times "veebox" in this page. If google shows it in third position, it only shows how bad is the registration of the veebox official website. If you search for "rms" in google, you'll find http://www.stallman.org/ Do you think that the "Royal Microscopical Society" should blame him for that? Google does not guarantee an accurate result in any case. People have to understand how to read results of a statistical research. If they can't it's sad but it's their problem first. 3) As my job is studying history, I'm naturally against alteration of archives. But indeed, even alteration of archives speaks a lot in a historic perspective. (I only speak for myself, obviously)" <http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/savannah-hackers/2003-05/msg00100.html> My reply means that I do not think this request acceptable. End for the story? * I want to let you know that Tim Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> threatened me today about the mail you sent to savannah-hackers in may. He told that I published his mail while I did not. You did, David, I only replied, including your mail in my reply. While you were surely right (and forced to) to forward his request, in fact, to avoid any issue with this person, you should have replied him to resent his mail to the savannah hackers mailing-list by himself. He also threatened a University of Canada (Laval, qc) because he was apparently sure to catch me there (too bad) and have a good faith in his accusation. I do not give a toss about his accusation while obviously he's not even capable to understand that I haven't done what he said and his conception of "confidentiality" have no legal basis, at least in France. But I think important for you to know how behave this person - and note that he may try to accuse you too. -- Mathieu Roy Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org Not a native english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english _______________________________________________ Savannah-hackers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/savannah-hackers
