1993-11-29 - Banning any subscriber

Header Data

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 161cdcfe6eaeeb356ca16a15dbad8a4b9e836f3b715f0a617006d0e66ae58d49
Message ID: <9311292057.AA07111@ah.com>
Reply To: <199311292022.MAA15806@mail.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-29 21:07:15 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 13:07:15 PST

Raw message

From: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes)
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 13:07:15 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Banning any subscriber
In-Reply-To: <199311292022.MAA15806@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9311292057.AA07111@ah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>>>Stop accepting mail from our own remailers?

>>Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously
>>authenticated pseudonyms.

>I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against
>anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were recently. 

The point is not to erect insurmountable barriers against anonymous
newbies.  In an environment where 'free speech noise' is a problem,
some barrier to entry should be expected.  The cypherpunks list
already uses one barrier to entry, namely, we use a mailing list
rather than a newsgroup.

Pseudonyms don't come free, neither in time, effort, nor money.

Authentication, in this context, can take many forms.  It could be as
simple as sending a key to the mailing list server.  It could be
developed to require someone to vouch for the pseudonym.  It could
require a sponsor who would read and repost until a separate
reputation develops.

The point is to put a bound on the noise from disrupters both
inadvertent and intentional, not to completely prevent noise.