Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976C3632F93
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:04:07 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 85249-06 for
	<pgsql-www-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:04:03 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E9B63285D
	for <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>; Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:04:03 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3GJ3wDw027967;
	Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:03:58 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Archives policy 
In-reply-to: <20090416155223.N84471@hub.org> 
References: <16454.1239890476@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<200904161454.n3GEsxm27869@momjian.us>
	<937d27e10904160808w21a2ebbcs57136807df000680@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090416151427.GW7709@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<937d27e10904160827r19c50f2fg79a552fdaae96836@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090416135324.U84471@hub.org>
	<20090416165800.GY7709@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<20090416155223.N84471@hub.org>
Comments: In-reply-to "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
	message dated "Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:53:00 -0300"
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:03:58 -0400
Message-ID: <27966.1239908638@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200904/89
X-Sequence-Number: 16956

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> (and I don't think we're going to attempt to delete pornographic
>> messages posted months ago -- if anything of the sort happens, action is
>> going to be taken pretty hastily).

> Agreed ... there isn't any reason why someone 'internally' doesn't notice 
> it from jus scanning the lists ...

I think by far the most likely problem scenario is that someone claims
to hold copyright on something-or-other in an old message and files a
DMCA takedown notice against it.  AFAICT the standard of proof in such
cases is "guilty until proven innocent", so we'd probably have to cave
rather than argue about it.  How are the copyright laws in Canada these
days?

			regards, tom lane