Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:14:25 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,
        WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New list (was Re: This list is... )
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 2/12/2006 02:17 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>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.

I don't know many of the current posters here, so that wouldn't be a
problem for me.  Some I may have met and talked to, but don't associate the
person with the name, others I may never have met in person.  I'm happy to
talk to just about anyone who's a fan though, whether in WSFA or some other
club, or even if they aren't active with any organized group.

>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.

Since just about anyone can become a WSFA member, or show up at a meeting,
and I'm not sure why anyone who isn't and doesn't plan to be would care
anyway, I'm not sure this is a major issue.  Not for me anyway.

>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.

You should take a look at the TOS and Privacy agreement again.  It seems
they've modified it a bit since you looked last.  They claim permanent
right to use the contents of public forums (which WSFA's appears to be),
but private forums are treated differently according to their TOS, and will
be deleted when the forum is removed...by anyone.  They also claim they
won't sell personally identifying information without permission...though
they will share it with "partners' for the purposes of supplying services
you've requested.  Their deal, and Google Groups deal, are very similar
now, though Yahoo's is a bit more legalistic and longer.

As for the Chinese thing, Yahoo has servers in China, to serve China and
elsewhere, and must cooperate with the local authorities there, same as
here.  Only the laws are different there.  They do advertise, in the TOS
and privacy statements, that your data may be stored in foreign countries,
and that this may affect its use and dissemination, and by using the
service you agree that this is OK with you, so they aren't hiding anything
about it and you use it at your own risk.  How much of that is recent I
can't say.

>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.

It wouldn't be legal, under WSFA's bylaws, for any official business to be
done on a Yahoo Groups list, or here, or anywhere other than at an official
WSFA business meeting.  Actions approved at such meetings can obviously
take place at other times and places, and people are free to discuss things
among themselves anywhere and any time they like.

>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.

Not without fixing those addresses.  Take a look at how Google handles this
issue in Google Groups (beta).  They put up the addresses with "..." in
place of most of the name, but make it a link that will get you to the full
address if you click it...which you can only do if you are logged in on
Google Groups and a member of that group.  It doesn't apply to your
situation perfectly, but if there was a list of addresses somewhere that
wasn't too easy to access (such as by asking you for it perhaps, or maybe
through a password protected web page), and the ones in the archives were
"fixed" in this way so there was data missing, but enough to index them in
the list you have when necessary, that would accomplish the same
thing.  Your list could still do things like turning "foo at bar.com" into
"foo at bar dot com" if you like, just in case it got out to the wrong people.

>I notice that spammers *have* somehow found the email address of the
>list itself.

Most likely through trojans and worms reading the address books and
mailboxes of list members.  That's one way a lot of spam gets
sent...especially the sort where there's a list of folks it went to, and
they are all co-workers or friends of each other.  Someone's data was
scanned for addresses, and their machine may even have been used to forward
the spam to them.

>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 keep wondering when spammers are going to realize that most of their
dreck is being filtered for the HTML, fake "to unsubscribe" links, and
other such things?  If they just sent plain text messages with their
offers, they'd be a lot harder to detect and destroy automatically.

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

How about one for all of *local* fandom?  There are fans I know locally who
are not WSFA members for one reason or another, but they are still
interesting and good people.  Some are even on this list... ;-)

>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.

That's an assumption on your part, and, from what I've seen, not a valid one.

"WSFA" didn't choose to make Yahoo the list server.  The publications
officer did, with approval by those present at a particular First Friday
meeting...all perfectly legal, but done without the knowledge or approval
of those who no longer attend First Friday meetings due to the venue and
related events.

Continuing to hold meetings at the Gillilands, despite the situation, and
to conduct important business there, no matter how legal under the bylaws,
is resulting in a split in the club, that is getting deeper as time goes on
and nothing is done to mend it.  Some people are essentially
disenfranchised by this situation.

I've heard mutterings of a power grab by a small group within the club, and
other clubs have died or been seriously harmed by such things in the past,
and pretending that it isn't happening won't change anything...it will only
encourage it.  Even if the club doesn't fracture into multiple smaller
clubs, perhaps too small to be viable, it is likely to lose members as some
of us just get sick of the whole mess and decide to spend our free time on
something that is actually fun...which this sort of thing is NOT.  there
were people present for their first or second meeting at the meeting where
you announced your leaving that I haven't seen since.  Maybe they've shown
up at recent First Friday meetings, but I wouldn't know about that..when
the "scenes" continued even after you left, I decided to go do something
more fun on those evenings, as I don't find such things at all pleasant.

Sure, the "disenfranchised" could *choose* to attend First Friday meetings
(except for Ted, who has been told by the current hosts that he can not...a
problem that WSFA really should have addressed as a high priority item
weeks ago as it constitutes a violation of the bylaws to hold meetings
where *any* member may not attend.  Note that the Gillilands have a perfect
right to bar anyone from their home...but WSFA has a legal obligation to
hold meetings at places where all members are welcome, and if the
Gillilands choose to bar a member, then WSFA can't meet there...QED.), but
if we chose to hold meetings at a pagan festival of nudity, where all
present were required to shed their clothing, and that resulted in some
members with religious or other reasons why they couldn't comply
comfortably not attending, that would still be disenfranchisement.  It's a
case of "we aren't saying you can't attend, we're just holding meetings in
such a way that you won't...and then doing things that affect you while you
aren't around to object".  It may be legal, but it isn't ethical.

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

Not unless he had advance knowledge of their being sent...and that's too
contrived and paranoid to really consider as a viable theory.

> > 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.

Since the letters were just factual information and a little connecting
narrative to establish context, I wouldn't care if it was you, or anyone
else.  It was still interesting to hear, since I wasn't around at the time
it all happened.

I did have you at the top of the list of likely suspects, but only because
you'd said you were putting together an explanation of your side of
it.  You'd said you changed your mind about that, but that was before
Alexis distributed his version, and that may have triggered you to
re-evaluate your decision to let it drop after you left.  The lack of a
return address tended to suggest it wasn't you though, as you tend to be
more up-front about things like that.  No bridges were burned as a result
of this however, and since I don't have any evidence, it was just a theory
(in the police sense).  I have others too, but the question isn't worth
much time in the first place IMO.  The facts are what they are, regardless
of how transmitted.

-- Mike B.
--
Good thing I'm not as judgmental as all those censorious, self-righteous
people around me.