Re: Alt List correspondence on "Nabble'

Nabble seems to be doing quite a good job.
  What's the problem with it?
  Cheers
  Nick,
  London

Kees Brandenburg <ctb@zeelandnet.nl> wrote:
  
Camden, you are right but the links you find on google are allways to
the real listarchive and not to a 'mirrored' one. Which is in my
opinion a step too far and something differnt than the google cache
which is still the real site but cached at google. Nabble also claims
the possibility to 'post' on the nabble.com version of the list. It
looks like nabble is using a real subscribtion for this.

The quicktime-vr listmanager reported this:

"Hello everyone-
We have located and removed the nabble.com list archiver, and have
banned them from re-subscribing. No more posts will be going to their
archives. We have also asked them to remove any lists.apple.com
archives as per their FAQ, and expect it to be dealt with soon. "

Gord what do yo think of this?

our lists archive on nabble.com

http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-photo-process-f15046.html

It's well done anyway

-k

> Well, the correspondence on this list is publicly available. Every
> message sent to the list is posted on the list web page, which can
> then be
> indexed by Google or any other search engine.
>
> Google caches, or 'hijacks', every page it finds; Nabble does the exact
> same thing, only with mailing lists such as this one. Legally, there's
> absolutely nothing wrong with what they're doing.
>
> Personally, I really appresciate services like this one. I can't tell
> you
> how many times I've googled something alt-process related and found my
> answers on previous posts to this list. If the list hadn't been
> public,
> half the time I never would have found an answer.
>
>
> Camden Hardy
>
> camden@hardyphotography.net
> http://www.hardyphotography.net
>
>
> On Tue, June 27, 2006 11:54 am, Kees Brandenburg wrote:
>> It looks like nabble.com is more or less 'hijacking' listarchives and
>> presenting them on their site without permission. This was also
>> mentioned on the quicktime-vr list today. That list is 'nabbled' too.
>> The nabble.com faq says that listmanagers can ask for removal but they
>> see themselves as a google like service claiming the right to 'archive
>> the web'.
>>
>>
>> -kees
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27-jun-06, at 10:30, TERRYAKING@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was told yesterday morning that there were many references on
>>> Google to cyanotype rex. I checked them out.
>>>
>>> I suppose that one has to accept that people will presume to know
>>> things of which they have no knowledge and that some will even parade
>>> this ignorance. There were references to people making amendments to
>>> the ph of ferric nitrate which play no part in the process and
>>> another to the acidity of ferric ammonium citrate which also has
>>> nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>> There was also a full repetition of the 'spoiling' correspondence on
>>> 'motives' from this list on something called 'Nabble' . What is
>>> 'Nabble' and why was this correspondence there ?
>>>
>>> The genuine article is at
>>>
>>> http://www.hands-on-pictures.com/html/rexhow.html
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Nick Blackburn
London
Received on 06/28/06-01:42:07 PM Z