> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> > ... > In that particular instance, some people even questioned the integrity of > the archives at the hosting site. So telling them "if you don't trust us, > just archive this yourself, here's the feed" was actually a feature. > ... Agreed, but the interesting purposes can only involve convincing reasonable people. Giving a kook a feed won't convince it of anything except that the feed is fake. The goal should be to support quiet inquiries by third parties, without forcing them to file IESG equivalents of freedom of information act paperwork. What the kooks, spammers, and others subject to moderation think or say is entirely uninteresting. As for giving more search engine hits to spammers--I've found Google's pointers to spammers' work in IETF lists useful. Such pointers tend to shut up "cartooneys." I've not noticed any real opposition to at least open archiving of moderation rejections. Is there anything that needs to be done to make this an official recommendation, IESG policy, or whatever? Vernon Schryver vjs@rhyolite.com