Douglas wrote in part:

>I got a little lost with your saying "no corporate entity"

I just meant that it is simply an interest group's list, not an employer's
or government body's list.

>then [writing] about the poster, and someone else, and then an employer.

I referred back to that scenario because it seemed to be behind Eric's
comment, and to be more problematic than my own group's situation.
(Our archives, by the way, are known by all members to exist and are
consulted all the time, so the invisibility of any one message is not
readily asserted, huge though the archives are.)

>It is a little difficult, for me, to figure out who might have an interest
>and why.

An interest in retention? Except in the case of the victim of a damaging
disclosure who might temporarily need that kind of direct evidence before
seeing to its removal, with a third party (such as their employer) in the
position of needing to accommodate that person, I don't know of who and
why myself.

(Speaking of visibility in large archives, I tried searching for where the
subject line would contain the string Russ provided or else contain 'delet',
and neither approach worked for me, with the latter yielding only this very
discussion; how else would you search for threads on this subject?)


Chuck Brandstater
[log in to unmask]