Dear LAD, In studying complex network (a doctorate research), I got into interaction networks because of its utility for understanding social systems. This lead me to GMANE database: gmane.org in which LAD, LAU, LAA (i think), and about 20 thousand other lists are hosted as public and with data available via RSS. After experimentations with some lists, in writing results in an article format, I chose 4 lists: the GNU C++ stdlib development list (official perhaps), LAU, LAD and Metareciclagem, a gadget-media-activist list from Brazil. This article was sent to arXiv: arxiv.org/abs/1310.7769 and is currently being revised by authors, with latest version here: http://sourceforge.net/p/labmacambira/fimDoMundo/ci/master/tree/textos/evol… Some visualizations of these networks in evolution are in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t5jxQ8cKxM&list=PLf_EtaMqu3jU-1j4jiIUiy… and: http://hera.ethymos.com.br:1080/redes/python/autoRede/escolheRedes.php Among all options available for doing this research, I chose LAD and LAU with esteem. This lists were quite helpful to me in many occasions, specially in the period 2005-2009. Anyway, this raises a question about this kind of analysis, if it is desirable, invasive in public lists/data. As they are publicly accessible, users should have access also to what kind of information one is able to extract from such data? Or should it be restricted to enterprises, government parties and individuals not sharing about it? I number participants, so names don't appear on results and even in the process of data mining, but should that be? Should that hold for public data? Of course, this discussion might make sense only when there are no aggressive intents, such as developing interfaces to expose someone, which is probably not cool in any case. Cheers! //r -- GNU/Linux User #479299 labmacambira.sf.net