On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Paula Ford wrote:
> This is interesting. In February, on a local list owner's list, there
> was discussion about a flurry of subscriptions from the employees of
> webclipping.com. This is a company that watches the Internet for mention
> of their customers. In response to correspondence from a list owner,

I don't like these snoopers but, really, there isn't a lot than can
be done about them other than gripe.  They know that a list with thousands
of subscribers all over the world, many of them constantly signing on and
off, isn't going to make subscribing too difficult, even though the
subscribers want their discussion to be "private, just among colleagues."
Subscribing to gain access for a quick look at the archives, or whatever,
is a known phenomenon.  That's why many lists started restricting REVIEW
to list owners.

These people know we can't really do anything about them without making
security so tight as to kill the list.  Subscription-by-owner is fine
for a small list but really is not feasible for large, active lists.
What, I'm going to do exhaustive research on every potential subscriber,
say 75 per day, to determine whether he has a bonafide reason for joining
the list?  Of course not, haven't the time.  The clipping agencies and
such know this and use it.

If I had my way, none of my lists would have a "web presence" as it is
a gaping barn door for this sort of activity and, equally important,
everything you can do via a "web presence" you can do via eamil more
efficiently, with one exception.  The exception is web pages are a
godsend to those with 'bots looking for any reference, anywhere, to
a particular word or phrase.  That ain't what I have fought to preserve
my extensive list archives for.

Subscriber A wants both security and ease of access, heavy on the later.
Then they scream about their stuff being picked up off-list.  A list
"web presence" almost ensures that that will happen soon or late.

As I said, had I my way none of my lists would have a "web presence."

Douglas