On Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:12:40 PDT Richard Childers <[log in to unmask]>
said:
 
>"... without the explicit consent of the  list  owner,  there  is  no
> gatewaying,  period."
>
>There is no mechanism in place to compel this, thus, this 'policy' is
>well-intentioned, but unenforceable, IMHO.
 
QUIET DELETE listname [log in to unmask]
 
>"... information  posted to  mailing lists  is certainly  not free ..."
>
>Who pays whom for it ? Do the contributors get paid for contributing ?
 
"Free" as in  "freely available", public vs private, of  course. There is
no deafer man  than him who doth  not deign to hear,  as the (translated)
saying goes.
 
>"... unless the owner wants it to."
>
>As I have stated in private mail with those concerned with this thread,
>the word "owner" clearly has limits and can be stretched to the break-
>-ing point in circumstances such as these, where they own neither the
>data nor the mechanisms by which it is propogated ... they facilitate.
>They possess nothing by which such a claim could be enforced, such as
>a title or deed.
 
I am  very impressed by  your eloquence, however  the facts are  that the
mailing  list  operates  on  computing   resources  owned  by  a  certain
organization,  which  has made  no  commitment  whatsoever to  make  such
resources  generally   available,  blah  blah.  This   organization  then
delegated  the  task  of  running  the  mailing  list  according  to  the
organization's best interests  to someone called list  owner, who decides
on a policy, blah  blah. People who don't like the rules  are free not to
participate. Now can we please keep the metaphysical garbage on usenet? I
am beginning to wonder why you subscribed to this list.
 
  Eric