Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 14:17:02 -0500 (EST)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New list (was Re: This list is... )
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Walter Miles <walter at nova.org> wrote:
> It would certainly make it a different list.  I imagine that Keith
> would feel bound to keep the archive of this list separate from that
> of the putative new list, to keep his commitment of privacy for
> current and former WSFAns, unless every participant in this list
> agreed to expose the archive to the new membership.

> It seems like a small thing, but I think it would be contrary to the
> stated conditions of the list's management.

Right.  Also, it would result in higher volume, which some current
subscribers might not like, especially if it's from people they
don't know.

Also, people would be (or at least ought to be) more reluctant to air
WSFA's dirty laundry in a forum being read by people who have never
been WSFA members.  And sometimes it needs to be aired.

Also, WSFA does need a list, and a YahooGroup is unsatisfactory
for numerous reasons.  They reserve the right to sell or give all
information to anyone for any reason at any time, whether it's
selling your email address and apparent interests to spammers,
or turning you into to authorities, including repressive Communist
authorities.

By now everyone presumably knows about dissident Shi Tao, who is
serving a ten year prison sentence for the crime of free speech after
being outed by Yahoo.  He's recently been joined by Li Zhi, another
person who put his trust in Yahoo, who got eight years.

I know several WSFAns refuse to have anything to do with Yahoo for
those and other reasons.  So I certainly hope no official business
is being done on any YahooGroups list.

"Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote:
> Personally, I think Rich's idea is a good one, but it's Keith's
> list.  Whether the archives are "capped off" and stored differently
> or not isn't a major consideration for me...I don't mind new folks
> seeing them too (though I'd prefer it if they weren't Googleable)..

I continue to scan the KeithLynch.net hits lots to make sure there
are no hits from Google or other search engines.  If there ever are,
I will move the archives to a different URL.  The only thing that
prevents Google hits is that the URL doesn't appear on any web page
that does get Google hits.  This could change at any time.

Yes, I could prevent Google hits with a robots.txt in my main
directory, but while that would prevent hits from Google and other
reputable search engines, it would actually *attract* hits from rogue
search engines such as ones operated by spammers.

As a second level of protection, all at-signs in email addresses in
the archives are replaced with the word "at," so even if the archives
are found by spammers, they won't be able to harvest any addresses.

I notice that spammers *have* somehow found the email address of the
list itself.  No spams have yet reached the list, since none of the
spams directed to it have happened to forge the name or email address
of any past or present WSFA member -- or if they have, the spam was
in HTML or had an attachment, and was blocked for that reason.

I am of course no longer checking the hits logs of the out-of-date
list archives on wsfa.org.  I asked WSFA's new webmasters to do so
in the instructions I gave them when they took over.

> but I'm not everyone who's ever posted here, and I'm not sure
> everyone who has is still around to ask.

They aren't.  Jack Chalker, for instance.

If PRSFS were to want a list, I might offer to make a list much like
this one for them.  But it would be a completely separate list.

I see no point in creating a list open to all of fandom.  The
rec.arts.sf.fandom newsgroup already exists.

I'm reluctant to start new projects unless I can commit to maintaining
them, if they're the sort that need maintenance.  I notice, for
instance, that the Capclave LiveJournal and the WSFA Wiki (neither
of which were ever my projects) both appear to have been abandoned.

One new project I would probably have done by now if I were still in
WSFA is Wikipedia entries on WSFA, Capclave, and Disclave.  If any of
you haven't discovered Wikipedia yet, give it a look.  It's amazing.
There are about a million entries, including ones on BSFS and Balticon.
Plus all other aspects of human knowledge.

> The archive question is one of the reasons I don't like using
> Yahoo...while they are maintained for now, Yahoo makes no promises
> of what will happen to them in future.  They could be deleted at
> any time and without warning for instance...says so in the TOS.

True.  But probably several subscribers are saving copies of all
messages themselves.  I'd be more worried about the archives getting
into hands they shouldn't than about them not getting into hands they
should.  And if the Communist Chinese aren't "wrong hands," then
nobody is.  Not that I'm saying WSFA has much to fear from the PRC,
but it demonstrates Yahoo's utter lack of ethics.  They'd sell your
daughter for dogfood if they thought they could get away with it.

The fact that WSFA chose to make a Communist agent, Yahoo, rather
than me, an ex-WSFAn, their official list owner shows the club's deep
contempt for me, and, indirectly, for the rights and freedoms of all
its members.  I should have left the club years earlier.

> Lack of archives could easily lead to interpersonal problems in
> WSFA...as memories seem to be very subjective and not always
> congruent with fact.  Being able to access the exact text of prior
> posts is one way to determine the difference between fact and
> fiction...and that need could come up years later, as we've seen
> recently.

Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net> wrote:
> Seems to me the "interpersonal problems" occurred anyway, archives
> or no archives.  After all, Alexis does not burden himself with
> inconvenient facts; he simply ignores them as he has always ignored
> this list and its archives in favor of second-hand interpretations.

"Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote:
> Yes, but anyone interested in what was going on had a reference to
> go check out the causes for themselves.  The anonymous person who
> put together extracts was helpful, but with the archives if could
> have been done by anyone at any time.

"Michael Walsh" <MJW at press.jhu.edu> wrote:
> The anonymous WSFAn (Deep Fan?) who did the mailing... was it in
> reaction to Alexis's letter in File 770 or was it a coincidence?

The timing works, just barely.

It definitely doesn't work the other way around; Alexis's File 770
letter cannot have been a response to those anonymous letters.

I look forward to seeing the next File 770.  I know several people
wrote responses, and there may be more I'm not aware of.  I'm curious
which ones will be published.

> Something we'll never know, unless he/she/they come forward?

I wish they would come forward.  They may have thought they were doing
me a favor, but they weren't.  Everyone who cared to know the truth
already did.  Now probably several WSFAns think *I* mailed those
letters.  So the letters just served to burn whatever bridges weren't
already in ashes.