Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Liberationtech List Reminder
companys at tmp.ucsb.edu
Fri Feb 3 04:33:11 PST 2017
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 4:26 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 07:30:15PM -0500, Jos? Mar?a Mateos wrote:
> > I think what you are describing is better accomplished by software like
> > Discourse (https://www.discourse.org/), which is the discussion engine
> > behind popular sites such as BoingBoing.net. This, however, presents the
> > danger of making the mailing list redundant (I prefer the mailing list
> > format, but that is just a matter of preference; I understand other
> > prefer web-based systems).
> It's not just a matter of preference: mailing lists (and Usenet) are
> inherently and markedly superior to web-based systems. It's not even
> close. It's a serious strategic blunder to downgrade to the latter.
> Let me give you just *some* of the reasons why:
> 1. They're asynchronous: you don't have to interact in real time.
> You can download messages when connected to the 'net, then read
> them and compose responses when offline. (This has special
> revelance to this group.)
> Also remember: not everyone is as fortunate and wealthy as you
> are. There are people using the Internet who have connections
> that run at dialup speeds, and/or are only available sporadically,
> and/or are heavily censored at the behest of their governments.
> Novices ignore this reality. Experienced people architect for it.
> 2. They work reasonably well even in the presence of multiple outages
> and severe congestion.
> 3. They're push, not pull, so new content just shows up. Web forums
> require that you go fishing for it.
> 4. They scale beautifully.
> 5. They allow you to use *your* software with the user interface of *your*
> choosing rather than being compelled to learn 687 different
> web forums with 687 different user interfaces, all of which
> range from "merely bad" to "hideously bad".
> 6. You can archive them locally...
> 7. ...which means you can search them locally with the software of *your*
> choice. Including when you're offline. And provided you make
> backups, you'll always have an archive -- even if the original
> goes away.
> I've seen WAY too many web-based discussions vanish forever
> because a host crashed or a domain expired or a company went
> under or a company was acquired or someone made a mistake or
> there was a security breach or a government confiscated it.
> 8. They're portable: lists can be rehosted relatively easily.
> 9. (When properly run) they're relatively free of abuse vectors.
> 10. They're low-bandwidth, which is especially important at a point in
> time when many people are interacting via metered services that
> charge by the byte and are WAY overpriced, and getting more
> overpriced every day. This will get worse, not better,
> with telecom industry consolidation and deregulation.
> 11. They impose minimal security risk.
> 12. They impose minimal privacy risk.
> 13. They can be freely interconverted -- that is, you can move a list
> hosted by A using software B on operating system C to
> host X using software Y on operating system Z.
> 14. They're archivable in a format that is likely to be readable long
> into the future. (I have archives of lists from the early 1980's.
> Still readable with contemporary software because they're in
> mbox format. I see no sign that this will cease to be true.)
> 15. They can be written to media and read from it. This is a very
> non-trivial task with web forums: just try doing the equivalent
> of #13 above. Good luck with that.
> Also highly relevant for this list: it's not a hard technical
> problem to sneakernet a mailing list or a newsgroup across a
> border on a USB stick or a memory card or a CD/DVD.
> 16. They handle threading well. And provided users take a few seconds
> to edit properly, they handle quoting well.
> 17. Numerous tools exist for handling mbox format: for example, "grepmail"
> is a highly useful basic search tool. Most search engines
> include parsers for email, and the task of ingesting mail
> archives into search engines is very well understood.
> Excellent archiving tools exist as well.
> 18. The computing resources require to support them are minimal --
> CPU, memory, disk, bandwidth, etc. I set up an instance
> of Mailman for someone that's working perfectly fine on a
> 10-year-old laptop.
> 19. Mailing lists interoperate. I can easily forward a message
> from this list to another one. Or to a person. I can
> send a message to multiple lists. I can forward a message
> from a person to this list. And so on. Try doing this
> with web forum software A on host B with destinations
> web forum software X and Y on hosts X1 and Y1. Good
> luck with that.
> 20. Mailing lists can be uni- or bidirectionally gatewayed to
> Usenet. (The main Python mailing list is an example
> of this.) This can be highly useful, and is something
> that everyone on *this* list should study/understand --
> because it makes them very difficult to censor.
> There's more, but I think this easily suffices to make a slamdunk case.
> Like I said, it's not even close.
> Frank Zappa once said that you can't be a real country unless you have
> a beer and an airline. I don't think you can take an organization or
> a project seriously unless it has a mailing list and/or a newsgroup.
> Of course there are always people who rush to the latest greatest
> thing (e.g., Slack appears to be popular right now) because it's new
> and shiny, but those come and go, and they depend on the vagaries of
> the companies behind them. Many painful object lessons in the
> impermanence of such things may be found at http://archiveteam.org
> -- whose contributors have invested heavily in attempts to mitigate
> the consequences of very poor decision-making by others. 
> Not to mention that many of those latest greatest shiny new things come
> equipped with hideous privacy and security issues that can't be fixed
> because they're fundamental parts of the design. Some of these
> are so obvious that I can only conclude they're intentional.
>  One metric -- of many -- for assessing such operations is to ask
> this question: can you export ALL of your data and ALL of your metadata
> from them, at will, and in a portable, open, usable format? The answer
> is almost always no. Even allegedly open operations like Google Groups
> fail this test. And if you can't do that, then you should instantly
> and permanently rule out using it.
Thank you. A very well argued case for keeping what we have.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the liberationtech