next »

[larryc]

Can anyone name any good, multi-participant blogs? I am aware of the Valve (not so academic) and Crooked Timber (which doesn't seem to be as popular as it was). Although their discussions can be interesting, they tend not to carry the other useful attributes of listservs: job listings, book reviews, CFPs. To my mind one of the advantages of H-NET (despite its antiquarian set-up) is that people are posting under their own names.

I think your comment shows the continuing importance of H-NET as an announcement list, a sort of digital bulletin board. If it serves no other function, the announcements justify the existence of H-NET. (Now why they need to use their crappy outdated software is a different question...)

The only really active and popular multi-author blog I know of in history is Edge of the American West--which, unfortunately, quickly took a turn to more politics than history. (Which is why their blog is active and popular and mine is not!). Metafilter is a very active general interest blog that often contains excellent history posts, but it is by no means academic. Crooked Timber chokes on its own seriousness. American Creation is a pretty active multi-author blog about the founding era. The best history blog is Civil War Memory, which is a single-author blog but has very vigorous discussion (see the multi-part "Was Grant a Drunk?" posts and discussions for instance).

I would love to see one of the H-NET lists start a blog, appointing a couple of moderators but empowering every singe list subscriber to create a post. I have suggested this to a couple of list editors but got equivocal responses.

http://www.metafilter.com/
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/
http://cwmemory.com/

[daniel_von_flanagan]

For myself, I use the forwarding service from my professional association and point it wherever I wish. Theoretically that should give correspondents some confidence that they actually are corresponding with me.

I agree; this is similar to what one does with a personal domain.  However, the email provider at whom you point your address ultimately controls the actual account. - DvF

[galactic_hedgehog]

There are plenty of indie email providers (here's one list), and comparing the terms of service of gmail with, say, slashmail, is an eye-opener. - DvF

Interesting.  Also interesting, the footnote at the bottom of the slashmail comparison page that says

Features/prices of competitive premium email providers as of July 18, 2006

which might explain why the some of the listed gmail features are wrong.

[csguy]

For myself, I use the forwarding service from my professional association and point it wherever I wish. Theoretically that should give correspondents some confidence that they actually are corresponding with me.

I agree; this is similar to what one does with a personal domain.  However, the email provider at whom you point your address ultimately controls the actual account. - DvF

csguy@professionalassociation.org. It started as a handy expedient. I didn't really want to go to the trouble and expense of getting a domain and spinning up a server and it's a recognizable address, professionally.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Features/prices of competitive premium email providers as of July 18, 2006

which might explain why the some of the listed gmail features are wrong.

I was basing my comparison on the google terms-of-service site, which includes things like

you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google’s sole discretion, without prior notice to you. ...You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account.

There have been some notorious instances of the latter problem.

The slashmail policy I liked was:

Slashmail does not claim any ownership/liability of content sent/received in your account. Other than checking physical existence for purposes of troubleshooting, we will not read, share, disclose, search or quote content of subscribers' email with anyone, unless required to by law. The content is stored and provided as the sole purpose of this service.

Where does Google offer a similar guarantee?  They don't, and can't, since your content is part of their revenue stream.  Here is EPIC's statement on gmail.

If Google can go more than a year without accidentally leaking documents, or voluntarily blocking content in repressive countries, or passing re-aggregatable data on inappropriately, or capriciously expunging user accounts, then I will stop reacting to them as negatively as I do.  Meanwhile, I am puzzled at why people are so anxious to defend them. Their services are admittedly very convenient, but that convenience comes at a cost. - DvF

[whiteknight]

H-Net is not what it used to be. For several years, I served as the list editor of one group, but recently resigned for two reasons: 1) the main editor would not relinquish the list to anyone else; and 2) there hasn't been a good discussion on the list for months. I'm still a member of several lists, but bureaucracy and pissing contests convinced me to get out of the inner workings of H-Net.

[hmaria1609]

I'm on a few library listservs and enjoy reading and learning what other libraries are doing.  We have our laughs too.

[polly_mer]

I tend to trust .mil and .gov addresses (because they have guns) but pretty much nobody else who I don't already know.

Having had a .gov address and dealt with the oversight that entails where they often erased my email or blocked legitimate addresses from people with whom I regularly correspond as part of my professional duties because they dared to send me a Word document (the mandated manuscript format), I don't trust them.

If I were to get an email from polly_mer@something.gov then I would have some confidence that it actually is from polly_mer@something.gov. Unless it's actually from some Chinese hacker (that is assuming you're not a Chinese hacker in which case it actually would be from you and I'd be wrong in my suspicions).

Well, I guess I would have more confidence in those kinds of things if I got less spam that listed my email address as the sender address (yes, I get spam that says From: polly_mer@something.gov To: polly_mer@something.gov).  Checking the header shows that my account has not been hacked, but rather the spammer just used a script to substitute the real address for my address.  If they're dumb enough to send me email that supposedly originates from my own account, I can't see how I can trust anyone through an electronic media.  When in doubt, I check headers and then call people.