<div dir="auto"><div>I think it's because their PII has been shared with a 3rd party without their consent, not the particulars of the software the 3rd party is using to send their emails.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Paul Esson</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 3 Feb 2026, 2:17 pm Les Kitchen via linux-aus, <<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello LA folk!<br>
<br>
While this is of immediate relevance to LUV (as a subcommittee<br>
of LA), it could have implications for LA more broadly, so I post.<br>
<br>
I'm trying to step back a bit from the current discussions about<br>
luv-announce, and identify what's really going on.<br>
<br>
It seems that we have two divergent and strongly held views:<br>
<br>
1. The mailing list sent out to by the current LUV team is still<br>
the same luv-announce list. It consists of the addresses<br>
provided by LUV members to LUV so they can be informed about<br>
LUV events (and as the de facto indication of LUV<br>
membership). The only thing that has changed is that mail is<br>
now being sent out using computing services donated by<br>
Electron Workshop, under the control of LUV. So it is still<br>
in effect luv-announce.<br>
<br>
2. The mailing list is now a different mailing list, and<br>
therefore addresses are being harvested (from luv-announce)<br>
without consent, which is a bad thing.<br>
<br>
I and others hold to View 1; others hold just as strongly to<br>
View 2. Maybe there are intermediate positions.<br>
<br>
I don't see any immediately easy way of resolving this, but I<br>
think it is the crucial issue under contention.<br>
<br>
I will say though (from my admittedly partisan position) all I<br>
have heard from holders of View 2 is the assertion that<br>
it's now a different list, and harvesting is happening.<br>
<br>
What I would like to hear from holders of View 2 is a coherent<br>
case that the list in question is a now a different list, and<br>
*not* really luv-announce.<br>
<br>
Is it because the list is running on different servers? Is it<br>
because the list server is under a different domain? Is it<br>
because the list server is running different mail software? Is<br>
it because the method of subscription is different? None of<br>
these seem particularly compelling reasons to regard it as a<br>
different list. As far as I'm aware nothing else has really<br>
changed (aside perhaps from some minor and forgivable glitches<br>
in set up.)<br>
<br>
I acknowledge that "luv-announce" does not appear explicitly in<br>
the new mailouts, but that could easily be fixed if people<br>
thought it was a good idea.<br>
<br>
As laid out in View 1, as I see it, it's the same list of email<br>
addresses being used for the same purposes under the control of<br>
LUV, therefore in effect still luv-announce.<br>
<br>
I am curious why people think that it is somehow really a<br>
different list from luv-announce. I hope we can reach some<br>
mutual understanding, and find a way ahead. My feeling is that<br>
some minor technical fixups in the current setup could resolve<br>
most of these concerns.<br>
<br>
<br>
— Smiles, Les.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
linux-aus mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">linux-aus@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linux.org.au/mailman/listinfo/linux-aus</a><br>
<br>
To unsubscribe from this list, send a blank email to<br>
<a href="mailto:linux-aus-unsubscribe@lists.linux.org.au" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">linux-aus-unsubscribe@lists.linux.org.au</a><br>
</blockquote></div>