Subject: Archives policy

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:07:05 +0100

Can I get comments/objections/opinions on this draft policy please?

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy

This is roughly what we've worked to over the years, albeit unwritten
until now. I've got fed up explaining it to every plonker that emails
claiming the CIA are about to assassinate him unless we remove his
name and figured it was time to write it down.

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:01:16 -0400

> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy

Hmm, the first section suggests that there are cases where we will
de-archive messages, and then the second lays out all the reasons
why we won't and why it's useless to ask.  So I'm still confused
what the policy is.  I would be happy with a policy that says
"The archives are graven on stone tablets.  Don't bother asking."
but if we are willing to editorialize in extreme cases then maybe
the second part needs to be modified.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:05:10 +0100

> the second part needs to be modified.

I don't think we can refuse if there is anything illegal, defamatory,
extremist, pornographic etc. It's everything else that should be set
in stone though I think.

I've since found similar policies on other sites (thanks Stefan) which
might useful to look at/borrow. The W3C's for example seems pretty
good: http://www.w3.org/Mail/ArchiveEditingPolicy

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:33:21 -0400

Dave Page <[email-masked]> writes:
>> I would be happy with a policy that says

> extremist, pornographic etc.

Why not?  As you point out, there are many copies of our archives,
so it'd be pretty useless to edit one.  Also, illegal according to
whose law, or pornographic in whose eyes?  I think saying we'll do
that is just inviting tin-hat censorship attempts.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:46:09 +0200

> that is just inviting tin-hat censorship attempts.

Illegal in the united states ATM because that's where the server is.  
We have no choice there.

As for pornographic, extremist or whatever - that's already covered by  
illegal in the cases where we should care.

It's still pointless due to mirrors etc, but ifnit illegal we have no  
choice.

/Magnus

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 10:54:59 -0400 (EDT)

> the second part needs to be modified.

I didn't say it earlier but I agree with Tom that the text is much too
verbose.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:08:52 +0100

> I didn't say it earlier but I agree with Tom that the text is much too

OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted
material. FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we
could easily become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will
certainly not do our reputation any good.

I've left the reasons why we won't remove/edit other messages as-is
for now. That's the main part I find myself explaining on a regular
basis so removing it defeats much of the purpose of the page. I'm
happy to hear suggestions for changes or improvements of course.

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:14:27 -0400

> certainly not do our reputation any good.

Now that you've hashed that out, would you explain *how* would you
actually remove the posts?  It requires editing the majordomo archive
store, but I don't think many people has access to that ... I know I
don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto
archives maintainer).

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:27:51 +0100

> don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto

Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages
almost immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from
running and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been
there are while (and renumbering messages will be a problem), then
we'll need to hack the file to blank out the undesirable message body
I guess. That's the bit I describe as 'error prone' :-)

Regarding access, I guess you never needed access in the past (or
people like me were just being too dense to realise you did) so it
never got raised. I have no objection FWIW.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:45:18 -0300 (ADT)

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> Illegal in the united states ATM because that's where the server is. We 
> have no choice there.

Then we'll need to move the server ... the raw mail archives are *not* in 
the US, and are not subject to their laws ... if we have to move the 
archives web site back down to the same network, so be it ... rather not, 
mind you, as Google indexing is torture on the server ...

---
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . [email-masked]                              MSN . [email-masked]
Yahoo . yscrappy               Skype: hub.org        ICQ . 7615664

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:47:16 -0300 (ADT)

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote:

> OK, well I've removed the bit about removing illegal/unwanted material. 
> FWIW, we *will* remove such unwanted content, otherwise we could easily 
> become an online archive for pr0n/warez etc. which will certainly not do 
> our reputation any good.

I do agree with this, but putting that under 'illegal material' was just 
way too ... regional, as far as interpretation is concerned ...

----

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:50:27 -0300 (ADT)

> don't for one (and I keep wondering why, seeing how I am the de facto

All list owners can delete messagse from their archives ... its built into 
Mj2:

from 'help archive' which fully explains and examples teh 
'archive-delete' option:

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
archive-delete[-hidden][-force]    listname date_count_number
archive-get[-immediate][-hidden]   listname date_count_number
archive-get-digest[-mime][-hidden] listname date_count_number
archive-index[-hidden]             listname date_count_number
archive-part-delete                listname message_number part_number
archive-part-edit                  listname message_number part_number
archive-part-get[-clean]           listname message_number part_number
archive-stats[-hidden]             listname date_count_number
archive-summary                    listname
archive-sync                       listname pattern
archive-part-replace listname message_number part_number <<ENDTAG
[New Contents]
ENDTAG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
date_count_number, if specified, indicates one or more messages
listname,          required,     is the name of a mailing list
message_number,    if specified, indicates a single message
part_number,       if specified, refers to a portion of a message
pattern,           if specified, indicates the names of files
-clean,   if specified, removes dangerous portions of an HTML part
-delete,  if specified, causes messages to be removed from the archive
-digest,  if specified, causes messages to be mailed in digests
-edit,    if specified, allows part of a posted message to be changed
-force,   if specified, removes messages which await digest delivery
-get,     if specified, causes whole messages to be displayed
-hidden,  if specified, displays only hidden messages (admins only)
-immediate, if specified, displays messages without pretty formatting
-index,   if specified, displays a summary of each message
-mime,    if specified, causes digests to be mailed in "mime" format
-part,    if specified, causes part of a posted message to be displayed
-replace, if specified, replaces part of a message with new contents
-stats,   if specified, displays per-user statistics
-summary, if specified, lists archive files and their contents
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

----

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:54:15 -0300 (ADT)

On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, Dave Page wrote:

> Yeah, thanks for raising that! If we catch inappropriate messages almost 
> immediately, it should just be a case of stopping mhonarc from running 
> and deleting the messages from the mbox file. If they've been there are 
> while (and renumbering messages will be a problem)

Isn't that why Alvaro(?) went through all that work getting it so that we 
could reference messages by MessageID?  To remove the worry concerning 
renumbering?

----

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:55:30 -0400

> the US, and are not subject to their laws ...

Moving the server just means there's some different set of laws to worry
about; Canadian or Panamanian or wherever.  One set might be more or less
friendly to us but I don't think we are going to choose our server
locations on that basis.

The real point in my mind is that mentioning any such consideration in
our posted policy just encourages people to try legal threats first
(as I gather occurred recently to prompt Dave to worry about this topic
at all).  If they actually have a basis for such threats they'll think
of it soon enough; we don't need to encourage it via a posted policy.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:58:00 -0400

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> there are while (and renumbering messages will be a problem)
>

Well, there's still a lot of people using the number scheme, so I don't
think we can just ignore the renumbering issue.  However, I think it's
reasonable to say that we can just ignore it for very recent messages
(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).

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:02:10 -0400

> could reference messages by MessageID?  To remove the worry concerning 

No, because all the internal links are still by message number, as are
uncountably many bookmarks and search engine entries that are outside
our control.  What Alvaro did is a convenience for some cases where you
have the message in your own mailbox and want to produce an archive
URL for it easily.

I agree that the correct way to handle such a situation is to replace
the message body with "Deleted by request of poster" or something
like that.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:02:33 -0400

> friendly to us but I don't think we are going to choose our server

However, maybe it would be good that both the raw Mj2 archives and the
HTML archives are within the same jurisdiction (Canada or Panama,
because I very much doubt that Marc is going to accept moving the Mj2
server to the US).  That way we would not be forced to do nasty tricks
in the archive conversion procedure if the US law says that something
must be removed from the HTML site but we don't want to remove it from
the upstream source for whatever reason.

> of it soon enough; we don't need to encourage it via a posted policy.

That's a good point, yes ...

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:36:55 +0200

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> All list owners can delete messagse from their archives ... its built
> into Mj2:

Oh crap.

Can we remove that ability? Since we *know* it breaks the archives...

//Magnus

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:24:37 +0100

> All list owners can delete messagse from their archives ... its built into

Can you (re)explain the architecture for me then please, as I'm
obviously missing something. I thought that mj2 simply stashed a copy
of each message in a standard mbox as it was sent, which we then use
mhonarc to convert to a bunch of web pages.

If you tell mj2 to delete a message, does it go back to the
appropriate mailbox file and delete it? That would change the
numbering that mhonarc uses, requiring a full rebuild of the archives
and breaking any external links in the process.

I also see a 'hidden' option. Does that work in conjunction with
mhonarc to hide a message based on a header or something? If not,
surely it must just remove it from the mailbox as well?

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:29:45 +0300

> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Archives_Policy

Altogether that page now reads like, our archiving system is too stupid to 
handle removals and we are too busy to bother.  Not sure if that will serve to 
convince people.  "Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible".

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:32:58 +0100

> convince people.  "Extremely difficult" is after all the same as "possible".

Well that is essentially correct :-) Any suggestions for alternative text?

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:53:00 -0300 (ADT)

> going to be taken pretty hastily).

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

----

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:03:58 -0400

> 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

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:07:59 -0700

> rather than argue about it.  How are the copyright laws in Canada these

I think what we really need to do is stop playing attorney and ask one
what our exposure is. I will contact SFLC.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
PostgreSQL - XMPP: [email-masked]
   Consulting, Development, Support, Training
   503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
   The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:08:53 -0400

> Well that is essentially correct :-) Any suggestions for alternative text?

The really key point is the one about there being many copies of our
archives that we have no control over, so asking us to remove our
copy accomplishes nothing worth the complainant's trouble.  The rest is
unlikely to deter anyone.

			regards, tom lane

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:16:56 -0400

> unlikely to deter anyone.

Complainant is of course free to pursue removal from the mirror
archives; and ours being the primary source, I think it's fair to say
that we agreeing that it should be removed makes it easier for them to
get them removed from the other sources.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:24:23 +0100

> unlikely to deter anyone.

In my experience, the number of copies is also unlikely to deter a
fair percentage. Many of these people are complete nuts - I've had one
claim the CIA will assassinate them because they can be traced through
our archives before! It's nonsense of course, but it'll make my life
easier to have a definitive answer for those and the saner folks so I
can direct them to it and then ignore any further complaints.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:27:00 +0100

> rather than argue about it.  How are the copyright laws in Canada these

I don't think it's worth worrying about that scenario unless it
happens - and if it does, one of us non-usians can simply point
archives.postgresql.org at the master server in Panama. Or immediately
remove the message if it is a legitimate complaint about something we
don't want on the archives anyway.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:50:41 -0300 (ADT)

> rather than argue about it.  How are the copyright laws in Canada these

All things considered, consider Canada the 53rd state ... (you guys have 
52, right?)

----

---

From: Alvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:55:00 -0300

> what our exposure is. I will contact SFLC.

I just got another guy requesting me to remove an archived email from
very old archives.  Nothing illegal so I'm not doing it.  Still, I just
reread this thread and saw this offer and no followup.  JD, did you ever
get around to asking SFLC about this?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---

From: Marc Fournier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:57:40 -0400

> get around to asking SFLC about this?

Iin the past, the policy was defined nice and simple: once in the archives, there are no changes, period, since its not just our archives that the messages is in, but every public / private archive that exists on the Internet …

The one exception to this was a few years back when we were alerts that there was a bunch of porn, but we didn't *remove* the posts, onlly XXXX'd out the text, so that the archives URLs didn't get changed in the process …

As for 'copyright laws in Canada', which was asked also above … consider Canada, in large part, to be a sister-state to the US, if not a bit more fascist(god, hope that is the right word) … it fluctuates somewhat, but over time, the net result tends to be that what is adopted in the US, gets adopted here …