> On an all or nothing basis, I'm
>against anything that impedes google searches; I think the LBO-archive is
>a wonderful resource. But on a one-time, correcting for past mistaken
>assumptions basis (and intending such especially jittery people to use
>aliases going forward); and if it were extremely easy; and if such people
>asked rather than demanded; then I might have thought differently.
>
>Michael
obscuring email address doesn't impede a google search. if you search by, say, "michael pollak" and "religion" and lbo-talk, you will get all you need if google has crawled those pages lately.
OR
if you know the convention used to obscure, you can search by obscured email address, "mpollak ** panix.com" or <mpollak ** panix.com>. in fact, if you just know the username, you can search mpollak and bring up all kinds of stuff on ya! :) busy buoy, you are!
again, i'm not arguing for doug do anything. i just think that people ought to understand what is actually being addressed and why their objections have actually been adressed. what was proposed was nothing new, it's been used for a very long time. if you type in hypermail hack, you'll see a bunch of canned code that's already been developed for doing just this. not to mention a slew of discussions list for hypermail users to discuss how to do what was proposed.
but, again, this is why i said this was just like bourg democracy. two days was hardly time for people to understand the issues. S.M.