This is the mail archive of the cygwin-talk mailing list for the cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Windows 95 support ?


George wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:43:03PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26 April 2006 15:30, mwoehlke wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
Christopher Faylor, le Tue 25 Apr 2006 14:05:54 -0400, a ?crit :
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 06:01:49PM +0000, g.r.vansickle@xxxxx
wrote:
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                            tsk, tsk.

This really is a losing battle isn't it?
Has anyone considered reconfiguring the mail software to 'correct'
this automatically?
Well, it's trivial to configure rewriting of email headers.

 But we're talking about body text here, and the web archive of this
 list.  If you keep what you present to the world as an authentic
 record of what people wrote, then there are moral and perhaps even
 legal implications if you feel you're allowed to rewrite it - even in
 what seems a mechanical and trivial way, the thing is that what you
 are then presenting in your "archive" is in fact *not verbatim*.
You're correct in saying it wouldn't be varbatim, but I wonder how
important that really is. My own carefully-preserved archives of
correspondence and list subscriptions go back years, but I'd be the
first to admit that most of it is rubbish, including anything written by
me.


As for any related legal issues, I'd wager a hippo to a dollar that
Google's lawyers have sorted them out long ago.

Plus the problems it would cause when somebody quotes a bit of program
code with an at sign in it that triggers a false positive and gets
mangled into non-compilable gibberish.

Might be a fair compromise. Personally, I find Google's interface
unreadable, but I doubt I'm alone in saying that I appreciate the
lengths they've gone to in preserving the confidentiality of personal
information.

Also, if the munge is "@" -> "<at>", it's not that hard to reverse with gray matter. I wouldn't do anything more severe than that (like obliterating the domain, for example, as was done in the post I originally replied to).


As for the legal/ethical/moral issues, as long as you *tell* people you do it, I don't think it's a big deal. It's not like you're changing the meaning of their message (although you may be positively misrepresenting their intelligence :-D).

--
Matthew
All of my signatures are 100% original. Including this one.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]