Thread: Archives policy
Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy This is roughly what we've worked to over the years, albeit unwritten until now. I've got fed up explaining it to every plonker that emails claiming the CIA are about to assassinate him unless we remove his name and figured it was time to write it down. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy Hmm, the first section suggests that there are cases where we will de-archive messages, and then the second lays out all the reasons why we won't and why it's useless to ask. So I'm still confused what the policy is. I would be happy with a policy that says "The archives are graven on stone tablets. Don't bother asking." but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe the second part needs to be modified. regards, tom lane
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy > > Hmm, the first section suggests that there are cases where we will > de-archive messages, and then the second lays out all the reasons > why we won't and why it's useless to ask. So I'm still confused > what the policy is. I would be happy with a policy that says > "The archives are graven on stone tablets. Don't bother asking." > but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe > the second part needs to be modified. I don't think we can refuse if there is anything illegal, defamatory, extremist, pornographic etc. It's everything else that should be set in stone though I think. I've since found similar policies on other sites (thanks Stefan) which might useful to look at/borrow. The W3C's for example seems pretty good: http://www.w3.org/Mail/ArchiveEditingPolicy -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I would be happy with a policy that says
>> "The archives are graven on stone tablets. �Don't bother asking."
>> but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe
>> the second part needs to be modified.
> I don't think we can refuse if there is anything illegal, defamatory,
> extremist, pornographic etc.
Why not? As you point out, there are many copies of our archives,
so it'd be pretty useless to edit one. Also, illegal according to
whose law, or pornographic in whose eyes? I think saying we'll do
that is just inviting tin-hat censorship attempts.
regards, tom lane
On 16 apr 2009, at 16.33, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I would be happy with a policy that says >>> "The archives are graven on stone tablets. Don't bother asking." >>> but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe >>> the second part needs to be modified. > >> I don't think we can refuse if there is anything illegal, defamatory, >> extremist, pornographic etc. > > Why not? As you point out, there are many copies of our archives, > so it'd be pretty useless to edit one. Also, illegal according to > whose law, or pornographic in whose eyes? I think saying we'll do > that is just inviting tin-hat censorship attempts. Illegal in the united states ATM because that's where the server is. We have no choice there. As for pornographic, extremist or whatever - that's already covered by illegal in the cases where we should care. It's still pointless due to mirrors etc, but ifnit illegal we have no choice. /Magnus
Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > > Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy > > Hmm, the first section suggests that there are cases where we will > de-archive messages, and then the second lays out all the reasons > why we won't and why it's useless to ask. So I'm still confused > what the policy is. I would be happy with a policy that says > "The archives are graven on stone tablets. Don't bother asking." > but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe > the second part needs to be modified. I didn't say it earlier but I agree with Tom that the text is much too verbose. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> > Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? >> > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy >> >> Hmm, the first section suggests that there are cases where we will >> de-archive messages, and then the second lays out all the reasons >> why we won't and why it's useless to ask. So I'm still confused >> what the policy is. I would be happy with a policy that says >> "The archives are graven on stone tablets. Don't bother asking." >> but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe >> the second part needs to be modified. > > I didn't say it earlier but I agree with Tom that the text is much too > verbose. OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will certainly not do our reputation any good. I've left the reasons why we won't remove/edit other messages as-is for now. That's the main part I find myself explaining on a regular basis so removing it defeats much of the purpose of the page. I'm happy to hear suggestions for changes or improvements of course. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted > material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we > could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will > certainly not do our reputation any good. Now that you've hashed that out, would you explain *how* would you actually remove the posts? It requires editing the majordomo archive store, but I don't think many people has access to that ... I know I don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto archives maintainer). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted >> material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we >> could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will >> certainly not do our reputation any good. > > Now that you've hashed that out, would you explain *how* would you > actually remove the posts? It requires editing the majordomo archive > store, but I don't think many people has access to that ... I know I > don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto > archives maintainer). Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages almost immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from running and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been there are while (and renumbering messages will be a problem), then we'll need to hack the file to blank out the undesirable message body I guess. That's the bit I describe as 'error prone' :-) Regarding access, I guess you never needed access in the past (or people like me were just being too dense to realise you did) so it never got raised. I have no objection FWIW. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote: > Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages almost > immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from running > and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been there are > while (and renumbering messages will be a problem) Isn't that why Alvaro(?) went through all that work getting it so that we could reference messages by MessageID? To remove the worry concerning renumbering? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Illegal in the united states ATM because that's where the server is. We
>> have no choice there.
> Then we'll need to move the server ... the raw mail archives are *not* in
> the US, and are not subject to their laws ...
Moving the server just means there's some different set of laws to worry
about; Canadian or Panamanian or wherever. One set might be more or less
friendly to us but I don't think we are going to choose our server
locations on that basis.
The real point in my mind is that mentioning any such consideration in
our posted policy just encourages people to try legal threats first
(as I gather occurred recently to prompt Dave to worry about this topic
at all). If they actually have a basis for such threats they'll think
of it soon enough; we don't need to encourage it via a posted policy.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Illegal in the united states ATM because that's where the server is. We > have no choice there. Then we'll need to move the server ... the raw mail archives are *not* in the US, and are not subject to their laws ... if we have to move the archives web site back down to the same network, so be it ... rather not, mind you, as Google indexing is torture on the server ... --- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > >> OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted >> material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we >> could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will >> certainly not do our reputation any good. > > Now that you've hashed that out, would you explain *how* would you > actually remove the posts? It requires editing the majordomo archive > store, but I don't think many people has access to that ... I know I > don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto > archives maintainer). All list owners can delete messagse from their archives ... its built into Mj2: from 'help archive' which fully explains and examples teh 'archive-delete' option: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = archive-delete[-hidden][-force] listname date_count_number archive-get[-immediate][-hidden] listname date_count_number archive-get-digest[-mime][-hidden] listname date_count_number archive-index[-hidden] listname date_count_number archive-part-delete listname message_number part_number archive-part-edit listname message_number part_number archive-part-get[-clean] listname message_number part_number archive-stats[-hidden] listname date_count_number archive-summary listname archive-sync listname pattern archive-part-replace listname message_number part_number <<ENDTAG [New Contents] ENDTAG - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - date_count_number, if specified, indicates one or more messages listname, required, is the name of a mailing list message_number, if specified, indicates a single message part_number, if specified, refers to a portion of a message pattern, if specified, indicates the names of files -clean, if specified, removes dangerous portions of an HTML part -delete, if specified, causes messages to be removed from the archive -digest, if specified, causes messages to be mailed in digests -edit, if specified, allows part of a posted message to be changed -force, if specified, removes messages which await digest delivery -get, if specified, causes whole messages to be displayed -hidden, if specified, displays only hidden messages (admins only) -immediate, if specified, displays messages without pretty formatting -index, if specified, displays a summary of each message -mime, if specified, causes digests to be mailed in "mime" format -part, if specified, causes part of a posted message to be displayed -replace, if specified, replaces part of a message with new contents -stats, if specified, displays per-user statistics -summary, if specified, lists archive files and their contents - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote: > >> Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages >> almost immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from >> running and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been >> there are while (and renumbering messages will be a problem) > > Isn't that why Alvaro(?) went through all that work getting it so that we > could reference messages by MessageID? To remove the worry concerning > renumbering? Well, there's still a lot of people using the number scheme, so I don't think we can just ignore the renumbering issue. However, I think it's reasonable to say that we can just ignore it for very recent messages (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is going to be taken pretty hastily). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote: > OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted material. > FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we could easily > become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will certainly not do > our reputation any good. I do agree with this, but putting that under 'illegal material' was just way too ... regional, as far as interpretation is concerned ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote:
>> Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages almost
>> immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from running
>> and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been there are
>> while (and renumbering messages will be a problem)
> Isn't that why Alvaro(?) went through all that work getting it so that we
> could reference messages by MessageID? To remove the worry concerning
> renumbering?
No, because all the internal links are still by message number, as are
uncountably many bookmarks and search engine entries that are outside
our control. What Alvaro did is a convenience for some cases where you
have the message in your own mailbox and want to produce an archive
URL for it easily.
I agree that the correct way to handle such a situation is to replace
the message body with "Deleted by request of poster" or something
like that.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Illegal in the united states ATM because that's where the server is. We > >> have no choice there. > > > Then we'll need to move the server ... the raw mail archives are *not* in > > the US, and are not subject to their laws ... > > Moving the server just means there's some different set of laws to worry > about; Canadian or Panamanian or wherever. One set might be more or less > friendly to us but I don't think we are going to choose our server > locations on that basis. However, maybe it would be good that both the raw Mj2 archives and the HTML archives are within the same jurisdiction (Canada or Panama, because I very much doubt that Marc is going to accept moving the Mj2 server to the US). That way we would not be forced to do nasty tricks in the archive conversion procedure if the US law says that something must be removed from the HTML site but we don't want to remove it from the upstream source for whatever reason. > The real point in my mind is that mentioning any such consideration in > our posted policy just encourages people to try legal threats first > (as I gather occurred recently to prompt Dave to worry about this topic > at all). If they actually have a basis for such threats they'll think > of it soon enough; we don't need to encourage it via a posted policy. That's a good point, yes ... -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Dave Page wrote: >> >>> OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted >>> material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we >>> could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will >>> certainly not do our reputation any good. >> >> Now that you've hashed that out, would you explain *how* would you >> actually remove the posts? It requires editing the majordomo archive >> store, but I don't think many people has access to that ... I know I >> don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto >> archives maintainer). > > All list owners can delete messagse from their archives ... its built > into Mj2: Oh crap. Can we remove that ability? Since we *know* it breaks the archives... //Magnus
On Thursday 16 April 2009 11:07:05 Dave Page wrote: > Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy Altogether that page now reads like, our archiving system is too stupid to handle removals and we are too busy to bother. Not sure if that will serve to convince people. "Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible".
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > On Thursday 16 April 2009 11:07:05 Dave Page wrote: >> Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please? >> >> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy > > Altogether that page now reads like, our archiving system is too stupid to > handle removals and we are too busy to bother. Not sure if that will serve to > convince people. "Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible". Well that is essentially correct :-) Any suggestions for alternative text? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic > messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is > going to be taken pretty hastily). Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice it from jus scanning the lists ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > All list owners can delete messagse from their archives ... its built into > Mj2: Can you (re)explain the architecture for me then please, as I'm obviously missing something. I thought that mj2 simply stashed a copy of each message in a standard mbox as it was sent, which we then use mhonarc to convert to a bunch of web pages. If you tell mj2 to delete a message, does it go back to the appropriate mailbox file and delete it? That would change the numbering that mhonarc uses, requiring a full rebuild of the archives and breaking any external links in the process. I also see a 'hidden' option. Does that work in conjunction with mhonarc to hide a message based on a header or something? If not, surely it must just remove it from the mailbox as well? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic
>> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is
>> going to be taken pretty hastily).
> Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice
> it from jus scanning the lists ...
I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims
to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a
DMCA takedown notice against it. AFAICT the standard of proof in such
cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave
rather than argue about it. How are the copyright laws in Canada these
days?
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 15:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic > >> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is > >> going to be taken pretty hastily). > > > Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice > > it from jus scanning the lists ... > > I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims > to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a > DMCA takedown notice against it. AFAICT the standard of proof in such > cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave > rather than argue about it. How are the copyright laws in Canada these > days? I think what we really need to do is stop playing attorney and ask one what our exposure is. I will contact SFLC. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > -- PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake@jabber.postgresql.org Consulting, Development, Support, Training 503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Altogether that page now reads like, our archiving system is too stupid to
>> handle removals and we are too busy to bother. �Not sure if that will serve to
>> convince people. �"Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible".
> Well that is essentially correct :-) Any suggestions for alternative text?
The really key point is the one about there being many copies of our
archives that we have no control over, so asking us to remove our
copy accomplishes nothing worth the complainant's trouble. The rest is
unlikely to deter anyone.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Altogether that page now reads like, our archiving system is too stupid to > >> handle removals and we are too busy to bother. �Not sure if that will serve to > >> convince people. �"Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible". > > > Well that is essentially correct :-) Any suggestions for alternative text? > > The really key point is the one about there being many copies of our > archives that we have no control over, so asking us to remove our > copy accomplishes nothing worth the complainant's trouble. The rest is > unlikely to deter anyone. Complainant is of course free to pursue removal from the mirror archives; and ours being the primary source, I think it's fair to say that we agreeing that it should be removed makes it easier for them to get them removed from the other sources. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: >> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: >>> Altogether that page now reads like, our archiving system is too stupid to >>> handle removals and we are too busy to bother. Not sure if that will serve to >>> convince people. "Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible". > >> Well that is essentially correct :-) Any suggestions for alternative text? > > The really key point is the one about there being many copies of our > archives that we have no control over, so asking us to remove our > copy accomplishes nothing worth the complainant's trouble. The rest is > unlikely to deter anyone. In my experience, the number of copies is also unlikely to deter a fair percentage. Many of these people are complete nuts - I've had one claim the CIA will assassinate them because they can be traced through our archives before! It's nonsense of course, but it'll make my life easier to have a definitive answer for those and the saner folks so I can direct them to it and then ignore any further complaints. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: >> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic >>> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is >>> going to be taken pretty hastily). > >> Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice >> it from jus scanning the lists ... > > I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims > to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a > DMCA takedown notice against it. AFAICT the standard of proof in such > cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave > rather than argue about it. How are the copyright laws in Canada these > days? I don't think it's worth worrying about that scenario unless it happens - and if it does, one of us non-usians can simply point archives.postgresql.org at the master server in Panama. Or immediately remove the message if it is a legitimate complaint about something we don't want on the archives anyway. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: >> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic >>> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is >>> going to be taken pretty hastily). > >> Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice >> it from jus scanning the lists ... > > I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims > to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a > DMCA takedown notice against it. AFAICT the standard of proof in such > cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave > rather than argue about it. How are the copyright laws in Canada these > days? All things considered, consider Canada the 53rd state ... (you guys have 52, right?) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
Excerpts from Joshua D. Drake's message of jue abr 16 15:07:59 -0400 2009: > On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 15:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic > > >> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is > > >> going to be taken pretty hastily). > > > > > Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice > > > it from jus scanning the lists ... > > > > I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims > > to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a > > DMCA takedown notice against it. AFAICT the standard of proof in such > > cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave > > rather than argue about it. How are the copyright laws in Canada these > > days? > > I think what we really need to do is stop playing attorney and ask one > what our exposure is. I will contact SFLC. I just got another guy requesting me to remove an archived email from very old archives. Nothing illegal so I'm not doing it. Still, I just reread this thread and saw this offer and no followup. JD, did you ever get around to asking SFLC about this? -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On 2012-04-11, at 2:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Joshua D. Drake's message of jue abr 16 15:07:59 -0400 2009: >> On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 15:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes: >>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>>>> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic >>>>> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is >>>>> going to be taken pretty hastily). >>> >>>> Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice >>>> it from jus scanning the lists ... >>> >>> I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims >>> to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a >>> DMCA takedown notice against it. AFAICT the standard of proof in such >>> cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave >>> rather than argue about it. How are the copyright laws in Canada these >>> days? >> >> I think what we really need to do is stop playing attorney and ask one >> what our exposure is. I will contact SFLC. > > I just got another guy requesting me to remove an archived email from > very old archives. Nothing illegal so I'm not doing it. Still, I just > reread this thread and saw this offer and no followup. JD, did you ever > get around to asking SFLC about this? Iin the past, the policy was defined nice and simple: once in the archives, there are no changes, period, since its not justour archives that the messages is in, but every public / private archive that exists on the Internet … The one exception to this was a few years back when we were alerts that there was a bunch of porn, but we didn't *remove*the posts, onlly XXXX'd out the text, so that the archives URLs didn't get changed in the process … As for 'copyright laws in Canada', which was asked also above … consider Canada, in large part, to be a sister-state to theUS, if not a bit more fascist(god, hope that is the right word) … it fluctuates somewhat, but over time, the net resulttends to be that what is adopted in the US, gets adopted here …