1993-02-20 - Re: LIST RULES

Header Data

From: deltorto@aol.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 05da88685df1d976dfd1f25c76a292a3acf8d62989ef69b43b04acc19b2ae751
Message ID: <9302201229.tn04106@aol.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-20 17:28:46 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 09:28:46 PST

Raw message

From: deltorto@aol.com
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 09:28:46 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: LIST RULES
Message-ID: <9302201229.tn04106@aol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>>[etc. etc.]
>>What do others on this list think about "commercial" postings?


I have to agree with John that it's philosophically inappropriate to discuss
non-cryptographic topics on this list. Like many others, I come here to
discuss ideas and technical concepts in an intellectual environment and to
learn about how to protect everyone's privacy from people who know a hell of
a lot more than I do about the mechanics of digital privacy. Anything that
deviates from that had better, imho, do it quickly and as an aside to
something more in line with the purpose of this list.

I think you're respectful of that, and I don't have any _particular_ problem
with what you posted, but probably because your msg stuck out _like a sore
thumb_ (and thus the hyperbolic characterization of it as 'abuse') from the
body of the normal discussion here and because he is a naturally cautious
(thank goodness for that!) person, John probably mentioned this to you in the
best terse way he knows how. My impression of John is that he is not prone to
overreact, but rather that he prefers to deliver a srtaightforward warning
with sufficient emphasis to avoid having to do it twice.

Please get in touch with those of us who might have responded to your posting
through more discrete channels. I sense that we need not discuss this any
further here.


PS: As an aside to the topic of commercialism, I'd just like to point out
what a hell of a nice job Zig is doing with the latest build of MacPGP
(2.1e87). Attaboy, Zig!