[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev Agreement, opinions about the move ? (Was Re: mailing-list
Re: lynx-dev Agreement, opinions about the move ? (Was Re: mailing-list problem (Was Re: lynx-dev What happened to MINGW patch? (fwd)))
Sat, 7 Feb 2004 10:23:12 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > Yes - the first thing to do is to turn off the spam (modify the process
> > so the archives only get what's sent to the mailing list). Cleaning up
> > the archives can be done second.
> What do you mean ? I already cleaned most archives, and
> Savannah doesn't archive spam.
> What I meant was that we have 3 options if someone sends a
> message to the old lynx-dev:
> deal with the spam from the old lynx-dev. By spam I mean most
> messages from non subscribers that currently go to it.
yes (3) is what I was talking about.
> > That was what Russell McOrmond said. Among other things:
> > To solve the problem you need to solve two independent issues:
> > a) Who has the time and trust of the community to do the pruning?
> Remove the spam ? I did it.
I looked into that for bug-ncurses, but did not get a response when I
sent email to the contact addresses. Cleaning the mail archive was
(similar to lynx-dev) a few hours work. Perhaps (if we find someone
on Savannah who answers email ;-), I could purge those as well.
> > b) People are linking directly to message URL's -- if you remove a
> > message from the mailbox archive and then re-run MHonArc then all the
> > message numbers (and URL's) change.
> Removing the spam is so we get a clean archive at Savannah, not
> to clean FLORA.org. You're righy about the URL's changing, but
> I guess there's no way to make the FLORA.org archives link to
> the ones from Savannah, even if we maintain the same messages
> in both.
It would be a lot of work unless we could make flora a mirror (and then
the url's would be a problem).
> And if we don't want to break the URLs, we can't remove the
> spam from FLORA.org. They can cure the disease, but not the
> damage it has done in the last years.
> So, instead of what I proposed, redirecting all links under
> http://www.flora.org/lynx-dev/ to the main page of the new
> archives, add a note to
> about the new archives, and maintain the old, with the spam,
> for historical reasons ?
Simply redirecting the links would be simpler. I did that when I dropped
clark.net a few year ago (Verio is only interested in "business"
customers, I recall).
Thomas E. Dickey
; To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send "unsubscribe lynx-dev" to address@hidden